Quick Menu

Vision B Seventeen Sdn Bhd:

Kuala Lumpur:
No. 68, Jalan 2/1 Ampang Jaya (Off Jalan Kerja Air Lama) 68000 Ampang, Selangor.
Email: admin@vb-17.com
Google Map

Jobless Millionaires International
No 5-2 & 5-3, Jalan Seri Rejang
Taman Sri Rampai
53300 Kuala Lumpur
Tel: +603 4144 4489
Email: admin@vb-17.com
Google Map (Jln Rampai Niaga1 is located opposite our office block)

No. 24 (Ground Floor), Jalan Pak Sako 4, Bandar Sri Semantan, 28000 Temerloh, Pahang
Tel: +609-2966577 / Fax:+609-2967020
Ros: 012-4895549
Website: www.vb-17.com
Prof Syed Putra Meir: +6012-6655549
Indonesia: +622111222259 / +6282123666549.
Email: profsyedputra@gmail.com

What Is Cancer?

Useful Information

Stages of Cancer - understanding the definitions.

Sometimes when seeking alternative treatments for cancer or getting a second opinion in natural cancer therapies, we need to communicate with standard definitions in order to fully understand the extent of the disease.

After it has been determined that an actual cancer exists, the degree to which the cancer has developed is determined. This is done for several reasons, the most important of which is providing a universally understood definition of a particular cancers progress. It aids in planning the treatment protocol for that particular cancer, determining prognosis, and also allows accurate end-results reporting. Treating physicians can speak to each other in a common language about something which might otherwise be discussed in subjective terms. Defining clear-cut descriptions of the disease at certain levels of development is called staging. A doctor, or treatment planning team, needs to know the stage of the disease to plan appropriate treatments. It is important to understand that while certain generalities can be drawn from these stages and the TNM system, each individual and each cancer are unique in many respects. While it is certainly true that individuals who are diagnosed with advanced stages (higher numbers) have a poorer prognosis of both cure and survival, that does not mean that people with these advanced stages will have a poorer outcome. We are all individuals and there is no hard rule or absolutes about survivability as it relates to staging.

The first rule of thumb is that no doctor can tell you ABSOLUTELY what your chances are of being cured or dying no matter what stage you are. Neither can they tell you how long you will live. Do not inquire about these things unless your doctor tells you that death is imminent and you must get your affairs in order. Even then, do not assume he can tell you for sure. He may speak from a statistical perspective, but that may not apply to you. You may be different in many ways from the population of individuals from which those statistics are derived. For instance, they may all be older than you, or all male, or many other possible variables. He may speak from his history of personal observations, but again, that may not apply to you, and his personal experience may not reflect accurately what is happening at another institution, in other patient populations, etc.

The old adage that if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail, can apply to doctors as well. Surgeons may tend to view solutions only from a surgical perspective, radiation oncologists from a radiation perspective etc. The best of all possible worlds is some type of combined therapies, and this treatment plan is best arrived at by a TUMOR BOARD at a comprehensive cancer center, or at minimum from a group of regional doctors from different disciplines, if it can be done in a timely fashion.

We all tend to view doctors with admiration and wonder, and most of the time we unconditionally trust their opinions. But even the best doctors can be wrong. That being said, two opinions are certainly better than one.

Do not let geography, as in the facility or doctor is close to home, determine your choice. You have been diagnosed with a very serious illness. You want to be in the best facility, with the best doctors, and the most current equipment and treatment options that you can possible get yourself into, and you have ONE chance to make the best decision possible. Cancer is very unforgiving of "half-measures", and it seldom offers patients a chance to change their minds mid-stream. And lastly in this personal, and subjective opinion that I am offering you here, remember that while we all think that doctors are an incredible group of individuals, some think that they have THE answer. There is no single doctor out there with THE ONLY ANSWER.

There are ALTERNATIVE solutions available. If you are willing to explore a less expensive but MORE EFFECTIVE method of treating cancer, then make an appointment with us for a non-obligatory consultation. Syed Putra Meir has been in the field of complimentary medicine for over 10 years and has thousands of success stories in fixing the incurable. To know more and to make an appointment you may contact him directly at +6012-6655549.


The following stages are used to describe cancer:


Overall Stage Grouping is also referred to as Roman Numeral Staging. This system uses numerals I, II, III, and IV (plus the 0) to describe the progression of cancer.

Stage 0 carcinoma in situ.

Stage I cancers are localized to one part of the body.

Stage II cancers are locally advanced.

Stage III cancers are also locally advanced. Whether a cancer is designated as Stage II or Stage III can depend on the specific type of cancer; for example, in Hodgkin's Disease, Stage II indicates affected lymph nodes on only one side of the diaphragm, whereas Stage III indicates affected lymph nodes above and below the diaphragm. The specific criteria for Stages II and III therefore differ according to diagnosis.

Stage IV cancers have often metastasized, or spread to other organs or throughout the body.


Recurrent


Recurrent disease means that the cancer has come back (recurred) after it has been treated. It may come back in another part of the body.

The TNM staging system (in this example we will take an oral carcinoma as an example for easy understanding)

Another method of staging oral carcinomas is referred to as the TNM method. In this method T describes the tumor, N describes the lymph nodes, and M describes distant metastasis.

TX Primary tumor cannot be assessed
To No evidence of primary tumor
Tis Carcinoma in situ
T1 Tumor 2 cm or less in greatest dimension
T2 Tumor more than 2 cm but not more than 4 cm in greatest dimension
T3 Tumor more than 4 cm in greatest dimension. (Lip) Tumor invades adjacent structures (e.g., through cortical bone, into deep [extrinsic] muscle of tongue, maxillary sinus, skin)
T4 (Oral cavity) Tumor invades adjacent structures (e.g., through cortical bone, into deep [extrinsic] muscle of tongue, maxillary sinus, skin)
NX Regional lymph nodes cannot be assessed
N0 No regional lymph node metastasis
N1 Metastasis in a single ipsilateral lymph node, 3 cm or less in greatest dimension
N2 Metastasis in a single ipsilateral lymph node, more than 3 cm but not more than 6 cm in greatest dimension; in multiple ipsilateral lymph nodes, none more than 6 cm in greatest dimension; in bilateral or contralateral lymph nodes, none more than 6 cm in greatest dimension
N2a Metastasis in single ipsilateral lymph node more than 3 cm but not more than 6 cm in greatest dimension
N2b Metastasis in multiple ipsilateral lymph nodes, none more than 6 cm in greatest dimension
N2c Metastasis in bilateral or contralateral lymph nodes, none more than 6 cm in greatest dimension
N3 Metastasis in a lymph node more than 6 cm in greatest dimension
MX Presence of distant metastasis cannot be assessed
M0 No distant metastasis
M1 Distant metastasis

For example a patient described as a T2N1M0, has a primary tumor of between 2 and 4 cm, that has metastasized to a single node on one side, and that node is less than 3cm in size, and there are no distant metastases present.


Grade


The definitions of the G categories apply to all head and neck sites except thyroid. These are:

G - Histopathological Grading
GX - Grade of differentiation cannot be assessed
G1 - Well differentiated
G2 - Moderately differentiated
G3 - Poorly differentiated
G4 - Undifferentiated

Differentiation: In cancer, refers to how mature (developed) the cancer cells are in a tumor. Differentiated tumor cells resemble normal cells and tend to grow and spread at a slower rate than undifferentiated or poorly differentiated tumor cells, which lack the structure and function of normal cells and grow uncontrollably.

In other words, poorly differentiated tumors are able to cross all boundaries of tissue types (muscle, soft tissue, etc.), even into bone.

Invasive: Another term comonly used when describing disease state is invasive. The lesion is "focally invasive" for instance. In terms of cancer, the term focal means limited to a specific area.

All of these factors are taken into consideration for your treatment plan.

After it has been determined that an actual cancer exists, the degree to which the cancer has developed is determined. This is done for several reasons, the most important of which is providing a universally understood definition of a particular cancers progress. It aids in planning the treatment protocol for that particular cancer, determining prognosis, and also allows accurate end-results reporting. Treating physicians can speak to each other in a common language about something which might otherwise be discussed in subjective terms. Defining clear-cut descriptions of the disease at certain levels of development is called staging. A doctor, or treatment planning team, needs to know the stage of the disease to plan appropriate treatments. It is important to understand that while certain generalities can be drawn from these stages and the TNM system, each individual and each cancer are unique in many respects. While it is certainly true that individuals who are diagnosed with advanced stages (higher numbers) have a poorer prognosis of both cure and survival, that does not mean that people with these advanced stages will have a poorer outcome. We are all individuals and there is no hard rule or absolutes about survivability as it relates to staging.

The first rule of thumb is that no doctor can tell you ABSOLUTELY what your chances are of being cured or dying no matter what stage you are. Neither can they tell you how long you will live. Do not inquire about these things unless your doctor tells you that death is imminent and you must get your affairs in order. Even then, do not assume he can tell you for sure. He may speak from a statistical perspective, but that may not apply to you. You may be different in many ways from the population of individuals from which those statistics are derived. For instance, they may all be older than you, or all male, or many other possible variables. He may speak from his history of personal observations, but again, that may not apply to you, and his personal experience may not reflect accurately what is happening at another institution, in other patient populations, etc.

The old adage that if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail, can apply to doctors as well. Surgeons may tend to view solutions only from a surgical perspective, radiation oncologists from a radiation perspective etc. The best of all possible worlds is some type of combined therapies, and this treatment plan is best arrived at by a TUMOR BOARD at a comprehensive cancer center, or at minimum from a group of regional doctors from different disciplines, if it can be done in a timely fashion.

We all tend to view doctors with admiration and wonder, and most of the time we unconditionally trust their opinions. But even the best doctors can be wrong. That being said, two opinions are certainly better than one.

Do not let geography, as in the facility or doctor is close to home, determine your choice. You have been diagnosed with a very serious illness. You want to be in the best facility, with the best doctors, and the most current equipment and treatment options that you can possible get yourself into, and you have ONE chance to make the best decision possible. Cancer is very unforgiving of "half-measures", and it seldom offers patients a chance to change their minds mid-stream. And lastly in this personal, and subjective opinion that I am offering you here, remember that while we all think that doctors are an incredible group of individuals, some think that they have THE answer. There is no single doctor out there with THE ONLY ANSWER.

There are ALTERNATIVE solutions available. If you are willing to explore a less expensive but MORE EFFECTIVE method of treating cancer, then make an appointment with us for a non-obligatory consultation. Syed Putra Meir has been in the field of complimentary medicine for over 10 years and has thousands of success stories in fixing the incurable. To know more and to make an appointment you may contact him directly at +6012-6655549.

The following stages are used to describe cancer:

Overall Stage Grouping is also referred to as Roman Numeral Staging. This system uses numerals I, II, III, and IV (plus the 0) to describe the progression of cancer.

Stage 0 carcinoma in situ.

Stage I cancers are localized to one part of the body.

Stage II cancers are locally advanced.

Stage III cancers are also locally advanced. Whether a cancer is designated as Stage II or Stage III can depend on the specific type of cancer; for example, in Hodgkin's Disease, Stage II indicates affected lymph nodes on only one side of the diaphragm, whereas Stage III indicates affected lymph nodes above and below the diaphragm. The specific criteria for Stages II and III therefore differ according to diagnosis.

Stage IV cancers have often metastasized, or spread to other organs or throughout the body.

Recurrent

Recurrent disease means that the cancer has come back (recurred) after it has been treated. It may come back in another part of the body.

The TNM staging system (in this example we will take an oral carcinoma as an example for easy understanding)

Another method of staging oral carcinomas is referred to as the TNM method. In this method T describes the tumor, N describes the lymph nodes, and M describes distant metastasis.

TX Primary tumor cannot be assessed

To No evidence of primary tumor

Tis Carcinoma in situ

T1 Tumor 2 cm or less in greatest dimension

T2 Tumor more than 2 cm but not more than 4 cm in greatest dimension

T3 Tumor more than 4 cm in greatest dimension. (Lip) Tumor invades adjacent structures (e.g., through cortical bone, into deep [extrinsic] muscle of tongue, maxillary sinus, skin)

T4 (Oral cavity) Tumor invades adjacent structures (e.g., through cortical bone, into deep [extrinsic] muscle of tongue, maxillary sinus, skin)

NX Regional lymph nodes cannot be assessed

N0 No regional lymph node metastasis

N1 Metastasis in a single ipsilateral lymph node, 3 cm or less in greatest dimension

N2 Metastasis in a single ipsilateral lymph node, more than 3 cm but not more than 6 cm in greatest dimension; in multiple ipsilateral lymph nodes, none more than 6 cm in greatest dimension; in bilateral or contralateral lymph nodes, none more than 6 cm in greatest dimension

N2a Metastasis in single ipsilateral lymph node more than 3 cm but not more than 6 cm in greatest dimension

N2b Metastasis in multiple ipsilateral lymph nodes, none more than 6 cm in greatest dimension

N2c Metastasis in bilateral or contralateral lymph nodes, none more than 6 cm in greatest dimension

N3 Metastasis in a lymph node more than 6 cm in greatest dimension

MX Presence of distant metastasis cannot be assessed

M0 No distant metastasis

M1 Distant metastasis

For example a patient described as a T2N1M0, has a primary tumor of between 2 and 4 cm, that has metastasized to a single node on one side, and that node is less than 3cm in size, and there are no distant metastases present.

Grade

The definitions of the G categories apply to all head and neck sites except thyroid. These are:

G - Histopathological Grading

GX - Grade of differentiation cannot be assessed
G1 - Well differentiated
G2 - Moderately differentiated
G3 - Poorly differentiated
G4 - Undifferentiated

Differentiation: In cancer, refers to how mature (developed) the cancer cells are in a tumor. Differentiated tumor cells resemble normal cells and tend to grow and spread at a slower rate than undifferentiated or poorly differentiated tumor cells, which lack the structure and function of normal cells and grow uncontrollably.

In other words, poorly differentiated tumors are able to cross all boundaries of tissue types (muscle, soft tissue, etc.), even into bone.

Invasive: Another term comonly used when describing disease state is invasive. The lesion is "focally invasive" for instance. In terms of cancer, the term focal means limited to a specific area.

All of these factors are taken into consideration for your treatment plan.

What to Do When You Are Diagnosed with Terminal Cancer
One of the most depressing articles you can ever read from cancer.about.com
There's no "right" approach to dealing with terminal cancer — and no one does it in exactly the same way. Still, it can help to consider the reactions and choices you may have after learning that your condition is incurable.


Getting the Diagnosis

On hearing the diagnosis, you may feel numb, as if it were all happening to someone else. Feelings of sadness, fear, loss and anger are also common.

"Some patients never accept a terminal diagnosis and die seeking treatment. Others get the diagnosis, say, 'OK,' and start putting their affairs in order," says Greta Greer, Director of Survivor Programs for the American Cancer Society.

People also differ in how they share their diagnosis. Some discuss it readily; others disclose little. Those with small children may want to keep things as normal as possible for as long as they can.

It will probably take more than one conversation to address your concerns and get the information you need. Second medical opinions are also important. Valuable online resources include the American Cancer Society's "Nearing the End of Life" http://www.cancer.org/Treatment/NearingtheEndofLife/NearingtheEndofLife/index


Medical Care and Clinical Trials


Although your cancer is incurable, you'll still have treatment options.

William Breitbart, MD, chief of psychiatry at New York's Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, estimates that at least 35% of cancer patients "would benefit from an intervention with a social worker, psychologist or psychiatrist." Terminally ill patients, in particular, can suffer from depression or anxiety, which are treatable with therapy, medications or both.

You may benefit from life-extending (though not curative) radiation or chemotherapy.

Palliative care -- intended to relieve symptoms such as pain -- can improve quality of life. Be assertive in asking about your options, including alternative therapies like acupuncture. Many experts say pain is undertreated in this country because of concerns about drug addictions.

Some people take part in clinical trials investigating experimental treatments. In a trial, you may receive the very latest of therapies — and you'll know that you're contributing to future advances in cancer care. The American Cancer Society offers extensive information about trials; the National Cancer Institute website lets you search among thousands of studies currently accepting participants.


The Dying Process

Patients' concerns frequently include getting effective support from their healthcare team, retaining their dignity and not being in pain. Many want some idea of what to expect at the end.

Death from cancer is characterized by a gradual weakening. (Don't assume you'll enjoy essentially stable health before a final, swift decline.) The dying person spends more and more time in bed — and less time awake — falling in to a deep, trance-like state before dying.

Finding Support

Giving up hope for a cure doesn't mean giving up. Among the coping strategies listed in a 2005 study of terminal cancer patients were:

- Taking one day at a time and focusing on the present
- Realizing there will be good days and bad days
- Trying to maintain a sense of normality and routine
- Avoiding anticipating bad things that may (or may not ever) happen
- Doing things you enjoy; don't just focus on dying
- Remembering that life doesn't stop if you get a terminal diagnosis
- Emotional support is important but may not come from family: "After a terminal diagnosis," Greer says, "some families draw closer together, but some become more strained and distant." Many hospitals offer counseling services for couples and families.

Seeking help from friends or relatives can be easier if you start with practical tasks, such as childcare, meals or rides. The American Cancer Society's Cancer Resource Network also provides support.

Many people with terminal cancer find support from other cancer patients. Hospitals often sponsor cancer support groups. Web-based communities, such as "Dying With Cancer," part of CancerChat.org.uk, are also available.


Additional Considerations


Healthcare-Related:


Do you want hospice care?

Are there things (feeding tubes, cardiopulmonary resuscitation) you don't want?

What about a healthcare proxy, advance directive or do-not-resuscitate order to guide your care when you cannot?


Legal and Financial Matters:


Are your financial affairs in order?
Does someone know where to find important papers?
Do you have a will? Is it up to date?
Do you have life insurance? Is the beneficiary information current?


Final Preparations:

Are there keepsakes or heirlooms to give to loved ones?
What about preparing letters or videos for them?
Do you want to die somewhere other than the hospital? What will that entail?
Do you want a minister, priest, rabbi or spiritual advisor present at the end?
Do you want your body buried or cremated? Do you have a burial plot? Would you like your ashes scattered in some special place?
What are your preferences for a memorial service? Have you shared your wishes?


Setting Priorities

Above all, you'll need to decide what to do in the time remaining. Are there issues you'd like to resolve? Do you want to resume your old life for as long as possible? Complete a major project? Travel? If you have small children or grandchildren, time with them may be your top priority.

Some people become advocates. Before his 2008 death from pancreatic cancer, Carnegie Mellon University professor Randy Pausch delivered a "last lecture" that became a best-selling book and popular YouTube video. He dedicated himself to "doing everything possible" to increase awareness of pancreatic cancer.

Whatever you choose, you'll need a sense of how much time you've got. Your doctor may say such predictions are little more than guesswork, but a rough time frame is vital.

Finally, as Dr. Breitbart observes, terminal illness poses existential challenges, such as accepting the life you've lived, giving that life coherent meaning and attaining a sense of closure. Consider asking yourself simply, "Am I at peace?"

****************************** THE END ********************************

Wasn't that one of the most depressing articles you have ever read in your life?
Well... is it really the end? If you have managed to read through the entire article above and you are now reading this, things mustn't be too good for you at the moment. Take heart, there is yet another alternative.

We at Vision B Seventeen do not believe that there is such a thing as Terminal Cancer. Nothing is terminal until we have had a shot at it!

Waste no time. Go get yourself a complete (full) blood test and make an appointment to see us. Either call us or write to us for a non-obligatory consultation of what your options are.

Some people have come forward to describe their experiences when dealing with the dreaded Big C. (extracted from http://www.medicinenet.com)

Comment from: mimi, 55-64 Female (Caregiver)
My sister was diagnosed with cancer of the bile duct in her liver in September of 2009. She went through extensive chemo and radiation and lost weight down to 92 pounds before she got a liver transplant in February. She was recovering and was sent home a week later. She lived until March 11 of this year. She died from a blood clot, but I don't understand why. I believe if the doctor had tested her when she first started going for headaches and other problems, she might have been saved. They were treating her for thyroid problems. She turned yellow, and her husband took her to the emergency room. That is when they found out she had tumors in her bile duct. Please get second opinions if you are not getting better. I wish things could have been different for her.

Comment from: cancer warrior, 45-54 Female (Patient)
I had just been blessed with a 2 1/2 year old baby boy in November 2005. The first year was really tough for me for he was a meth baby and could not sleep at night. The crying would go on for hours. I would hold and sing to him and one night I noticed that I was getting severe back pain and pain in my upper right rib cage. The following year, I found a mass in my right breast and suddenly, I got a strange feeling in my gut. For the next week, I would make up stories about the mass and finally had to come to conclusion this could be serious. In January 2007, I got a mammogram and within 10 days I got the letter and a phone call from my GYN. A second mammogram and ultrasound was performed, then another call for a needle biopsy. That's when I was diagnosed with "Abrasive lobor carcinoma." Within a week, I had a breast MRI, blood work, a port placed in my right side of my chest and my first chemo treatment. As I continue to receive chemo, every week, there were times I wanted to die. I lost my hair and my eyelashes, and my finger nails began to loosen and fall off. I had sores in my mouth and a metallic taste, which made it hard to eat or swallow. I would cry everyday when I looked at myself in the mirror and wondered if I was going to make it. Although, when I went in front of the public, I was smiling and continued to work. Attitude is very important and not to ask "Why me?" (although it is very normal to ask), but ask, "What can I do to beat this? " I was in stage 4, and the cancer had spread to my liver, spine, pelvis, and ribs. By the grace of God and a good Doctor, my life was spared. I had so many people praying for me. I saw God's face and who is really is. I was in remission or a year and a half. It now has come back for the third time, but I have peace and will fight this battle again.

Comment from: Texone, 45-54 Male (Patient)
I have had liver cancer (HCC) since 2002. I underwent a liver transplant in 2002 as well as a RFA pre-transplant. In 2009 I was having severe lower ab pain, had a PET scan and found out the cancer had spread to my colon, lungs, stomach and beyond. The tumor in by bowels was so large they couldn't cut it out so I had to have colon surgery. I have been on Hospice ever since. I am down from 230 lbs in Aug. to 122 lbs in Jan. I have never spoken of this since it happened. I know I am depressed but at 54 I guess I have the right to be. I do blame myself for some of this for not being more pro-active with my sickness. What I want to get across to anyone who will listen is don't just limp along and get your blood test and yearly checkups. Get involved, demand answers, and believe your body. You can feel when something is not right, listen to it, and pray. I wish now I had done all these things, but it is too late for me. These doctors work miracles every day but not without your help. Don't just sit around feeling sorry for yourself feed your doctors every bit of info you can, they can't do it without you. And find something to believe in, be it God or whatever you need, find something to believe in.

Comment from: wondering, 55-64 Female (Patient)
I am a Latina woman who was diagnosed with Scleroderma "CREST" in 1999. Since that time, I have had many different surgeries to remove calcinosis. I most recently had a surgery in November 2006 to remove a lump in my right groin (lymph node). It was diagnosed as a secondary squamous cell carcinoma with no site of origin. I keep getting CTs every six months, and still no site of origin. I remember that I had a painful lump on my right thigh, and my doctor said it was another calcinosis. He recommended that I massage it every day. I did, and it disappeared, and then the lump appeared in my groin about a week or two later.

Comment from: angeleyez2112, 35-44 Female (Caregiver)
My mother has liver/gallbladder cancer. We only found out because one morning she woke up yellow- went to the hospital and was told what it was. They put a stint between the liver and gallbladder for the bile. She doesn't even look like my mother anymore. She wasn't sick a day in her life. She exercises, walks, eats healthy and she's a vegetarian. Her face is sucked in, she looks 20 years older, and it's scary. She won't do chemo, but, will do radiation. The Dr. says there is no cure, nothing medically that can be done, he can only do radiation to "extend" her life. I'm trying to be strong for her, but the tumor already grew over the stint and it's only been 2 weeks.

Comment from: tger, 65-74 Male (Patient)
I underwent a radical mastectomy six years ago following discovery of an inverted nipple and a dimple on my left breast. No malignant cells were found in the 31 lymph nodes which were removed and biopsied. I went through a series of chemo treatments and medications were prescribed to prevent recurrence. After six years of use, my oncologist discontinued my medications, as there were no signs of cancer. Ten days later, I experienced severe abdominal and back pain. Four months of CAT scans, MRIs, GI tests, PET scans and a barrage of procedures were all negative. I was told by two doctors that there was absolutely no cancer in my body. After I sought treatment in an emergency room for pain and a high fever, a physician ordered yet another CAT scan and discovered massive Stage IV metastatic bone cancer.

Comment from: Lisa, 65-74 Female (Caregiver)
My mother just passed away from cancer. She has had cancer for the past 20 years off an on. She had had breast cancer, leukemia, colon cancer, kidney cancer, and the last one was liver cancer.

Comment from: Sniffles1014, 55-64 Female (Patient)
I am a 62 year. old female and 2 years ago I was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer which has spread to my liver. At this time I am not taking any chemo. I've done 1 1/2 years of that. I have a fair appetite and at times have pain at the left side of my stomach. I also have Crohns disease so I don't know if the pain in my bowel comes from the cancer or the Crohns, I take pain meds for that when needed. As a result of the pancreatic cancer I have diabetes which seems harder to fight then the cancer. At this time I am doing quite well, am active and have a good amount of energy. Praise be to our Lord and Savior for I am looking for healing. At this stage of the game my doctor is figuring out which avenue to go with chemo. There aren't that many when it comes to this kind of cancer. My faith is strong and I know my Lord will see me through. I'm just so very grateful for the time he has and is giving me on this earth to share with my children and grandchildren.

Comment from: Pejo, 65-74 Male (Patient)
Two years ago I was diagnosed to have sarcoma of the knee. The grapefruit size tumor was excised successfully, but I was left with ongoing nerve pain. I am receiving opiates to relieve the pain but only minimally. This year the sarcoma tumor metastasized into my lung. The surgeon removed three malignant tumors. He said there is nothing more he can do. Chemotherapy and radiation treatments are not an option for my situation. As the disease progresses I will be treated for pain as I am for the nerve pain in my leg. It is not a hopeful situation.

Comment from: 65-74 Male (Caregiver)
My brother was diagnosed with stage four prostrate cancer two years ago. The cancer has spread to his bones, back and ribs. What is the general prognosis? He did receive radiation on the prostrate (gland was not removed at time of initial surgery) and under went 18 months of hormone treatment. The new cancer area was diagnosed within the past 6 weeks.

Comment from: pharoah, 45-54 Male (Patient)
Please help me before it is too late. Everyone thinks that only ladies can get breast cancer, but men can also get it. There is an 18% breast cancer rate in men and it is going up. I waited five months before I went to my doctor. It was a shame because I waited too long I had to have everything cut out.


****************************************************************

What you have just read above are real life accounts and experiences that people have gone through. Suffering from cancer is not an easy thing to go through in life. People change after the ordeal, and many lead very different lives after.

Radiation & chemotherapy treatment can only be effective up to a certain level. Too much of this treatment may kill you faster than the cancer itself.

Find out more by contacting us on how you can avoid certain operations and removal of organs. Cancer spreads. If you cannot find its source, removal of the tumor is futile and basically just delaying the inevitable.

We can help you avoid the painful experience of going through chemotherapy and radiation therapy. Would you like to know more?


Conventional cancer detection methods.

Early detection of cancer can greatly improve the odds of successful treatment and survival. Physicians use information from symptoms and several other procedures to diagnose cancer. Imaging techniques such as X-rays, CT scans, MRI scans, PET scans, and ultrasound scans are used regularly in order to detect where a tumor is located and what organs may be affected by it. Doctors may also conduct an endoscopy, which is a procedure that uses a thin tube with a camera and light at one end, to look for abnormalities inside the body.

Extracting cancer cells and looking at them under a microscope is the only absolute way to diagnose cancer. This procedure is called a biopsy. Other types of molecular diagnostic tests are frequently employed as well. Physicians will analyze your body's sugars, fats, proteins, and DNA at the molecular level. For example, cancerous prostate cells release a higher level of a chemical called PSA (prostate-specific antigen) into the bloodstream that can be detected by a blood test. Molecular diagnostics, biopsies, and imaging techniques are all used together to diagnose cancer.

Just a note of warning, based from our observations, patients who undergo a biopsy somehow causes the cancer cells to flare and spread faster. Therefore, should you decide to do a biopsy, be prepared to act fast and start on your cancer treatment protocol. Try not to delay. So think about your situation, discuss it with family. Decide what you can or cannot do. Decide on what you should do if the results come back positive or negative. Act when the results are known.

Please also take note that the medical world is beginning to recognize that cancer can also be diagnosed via blood tests and urine tests.

Early detection of cancer can greatly improve the odds of successful treatment and survival. Physicians use information from symptoms and several other procedures to diagnose cancer. Imaging techniques such as X-rays, CT scans, MRI scans, PET scans, and ultrasound scans are used regularly in order to detect where a tumor is located and what organs may be affected by it. Doctors may also conduct an endoscopy, which is a procedure that uses a thin tube with a camera and light at one end, to look for abnormalities inside the body.

Extracting cancer cells and looking at them under a microscope is the only absolute way to diagnose cancer. This procedure is called a biopsy. Other types of molecular diagnostic tests are frequently employed as well. Physicians will analyze your body's sugars, fats, proteins, and DNA at the molecular level. For example, cancerous prostate cells release a higher level of a chemical called PSA (prostate-specific antigen) into the bloodstream that can be detected by a blood test. Molecular diagnostics, biopsies, and imaging techniques are all used together to diagnose cancer.

Just a note of warning, based from our observations, patients who undergo a biopsy somehow causes the cancer cells to flare and spread faster. Therefore, should you decide to do a biopsy, be prepared to act fast and start on your cancer treatment protocol. Try not to delay. So think about your situation, discuss it with family. Decide what you can or cannot do. Decide on what you should do if the results come back positive or negative. Act when the results are known.

Please also take note that the medical world is beginning to recognize that cancer can also be diagnosed via blood tests and urine tests.

What are the symptoms of cancer?
Very useful facts to know and look out for.

Cancer symptoms are quite varied and depend on where the cancer is located, where it has spread, and how big the tumor is. Some cancers can be felt or seen through the skin - a lump on the breast or testicle can be an indicator of cancer in those locations. Skin cancer (melanoma) is often noted by a change in a wart or mole on the skin. Some oral cancers present white patches inside the mouth or white spots on the tongue.

Other cancers have symptoms that are less physically apparent. Some brain tumors tend to present symptoms early in the disease as they affect important cognitive functions. Pancreas cancers are usually too small to cause symptoms until they cause pain by pushing against nearby nerves or interfere with liver function to cause a yellowing of the skin and eyes called jaundice. Symptoms also can be created as a tumor grows and pushes against organs and blood vessels. For example, colon cancers lead to symptoms such as constipation, diarrhea, and changes in stool size. Bladder or prostate cancers cause changes in bladder function such as more frequent or infrequent urination.

As cancer cells use the body's energy and interfere with normal hormone function, it is possible to present symptoms such as fever, fatigue, excessive sweating, anemia, and unexplained weight loss. However, these symptoms are common in several other maladies as well. For example, coughing and hoarseness can point to lung or throat cancer as well as several other conditions.

When cancer spreads, or metastasizes, additional symptoms can present themselves in the newly affected area. Swollen or enlarged lymph nodes are common and likely to be present early. If cancer spreads to the brain, patients may experience vertigo, headaches, or seizures. Spreading to the lungs may cause coughing and shortness of breath. In addition, the liver may become enlarged and cause jaundice and bones can become painful, brittle, and break easily. Symptoms of metastasis ultimately depend on the location to which the cancer has spread.

Cancer symptoms are quite varied and depend on where the cancer is located, where it has spread, and how big the tumor is. Some cancers can be felt or seen through the skin - a lump on the breast or testicle can be an indicator of cancer in those locations. Skin cancer (melanoma) is often noted by a change in a wart or mole on the skin. Some oral cancers present white patches inside the mouth or white spots on the tongue.

Other cancers have symptoms that are less physically apparent. Some brain tumors tend to present symptoms early in the disease as they affect important cognitive functions. Pancreas cancers are usually too small to cause symptoms until they cause pain by pushing against nearby nerves or interfere with liver function to cause a yellowing of the skin and eyes called jaundice. Symptoms also can be created as a tumor grows and pushes against organs and blood vessels. For example, colon cancers lead to symptoms such as constipation, diarrhea, and changes in stool size. Bladder or prostate cancers cause changes in bladder function such as more frequent or infrequent urination.

As cancer cells use the body's energy and interfere with normal hormone function, it is possible to present symptoms such as fever, fatigue, excessive sweating, anemia, and unexplained weight loss. However, these symptoms are common in several other maladies as well. For example, coughing and hoarseness can point to lung or throat cancer as well as several other conditions.

When cancer spreads, or metastasizes, additional symptoms can present themselves in the newly affected area. Swollen or enlarged lymph nodes are common and likely to be present early. If cancer spreads to the brain, patients may experience vertigo, headaches, or seizures. Spreading to the lungs may cause coughing and shortness of breath. In addition, the liver may become enlarged and cause jaundice and bones can become painful, brittle, and break easily. Symptoms of metastasis ultimately depend on the location to which the cancer has spread.



Lecture by Mr. G. Edward Griffin
Author of "World Without Cancer: The Story of Vitamin B–17"

The subject which brings us together this evening ladies and gentlemen, is a uniquely sobering one. Any factor which could cause so much as one lingering, painful, premature death should be a sobering factor and one against which we would mount every resource at our command. Cancer is not going to cause just one premature death. It is going to account for one out of every four of us here this evening, and indeed, everyone in these United States, unless scientific research discovers a means to a control, which can produce a world without cancer.

Most of you are aware of this; there is probably no one in this audience or on this (planet) whose life has not been deeply touched by the loss of a loved one to cancer, and some may be here solely in the hope that a means may be revealed to them here tonight by which a friend or a relative now suffering perhaps might be saved.

The Committee for Freedom of Choice in Cancer Therapy believes that a material which has been widely tested shows great promise as a major weapon against cancer. Indeed, that it shows great promises as being the sought after cancer control agent. I am speaking, of course, of Laetrile, also known as Amygdalin or Vitamin B–17. But this Committee was formed because, as the title suggests, we are being denied freedom of choice in testing and developing the full potential of laetrile which experience suggests, is there to be developed, and we are being denied the right to use laetrile right now to that degree of life saving benefit already known to definitely exist.

Our speaker tonight is Mr. G. Edward Griffin, who was one of the founders of the Committee for Freedom of Choice in Cancer Therapy. This will hardly come as a surprise to many of you who have come to expect to find Ed Griffin in the forefront of any special battle involving the preservation of individual freedoms. Mr. Griffin has become well known because of his unique talent for researching obscure and difficult topics and then presenting them in clear, concise terms that all can understand. But, perhaps, you are not aware of how young he was when he first displayed his talent for work in serious matters affecting the country.

Ed was just 15 when he delivered a speech on Patrick Henry at the annual national oratorical contest sponsored by the Hearst newspapers, and won first prize. During his senior year in high school, he was master of ceremonies of his own CBS radio network program, "Make Way For Youth". Then he was awarded a "Regions Alumni Scholarship" to the University of Michigan, where he received his Bachelor of Arts Degree.

In addition to two years in the Army, Mr. Griffin served as a radio announcer news commentator, assistant TV director and insurance man before commencing his career as an author, narrator and producer of documentary films and books, which has established his national reputation. Among these, many familiar to most of you, are the "OSHA Controversy", "The Capitalist Conspiracy More Deadly Than War", "The Grand Design", "The Great Prison Break", "The Fearful Master" and most recently, "A World Without Cancer". He is now the President of "American Media", a publishing and film production company in Southern California, where he lives with his wife and four children.

Tonight, he will speak to us on the politics of cancer therapy. Ladies and gentlemen, it is my honor and privilege to present Mr. Ed Griffin.

The first time I was introduced to the subject of Laetrile or vitamin therapy in the control of cancer, was when I was on a short fishing trip with Dr. John Richardson, a physician in San Francisco, who as you probably know, is in the forefront of the legal battle to establish the physician's right to use laetrile or vitamin therapy or anything he wishes to use, in the treatment of his patients. Because he was using laetrile last year he was arrested by the FDA, and he is taking this case to the courts. I think he stands an excellent chance of winning but, of course, that remains yet to be seen. The whole purpose, the initial trigger behind the formation of the Committee for Freedom of Choice in Cancer Therapy was to rally nationwide support behind not only Dr. Richardson but other physicians who hopefully would have the courage to join with him and challenge the establishment, if you will, the bureaucracy, in the right for a physician to have freedom of choice in this regard.

At Any rate, I have known John for quite a while, and we were on this fishing trip up in Oregon. If you ever have the chance to meet this man you will recognize immediately that he is a very intense person. I was trying to enjoy the babbling stream, the fresh air, the green trees, the blue sky and he brought his brief case with him. I can assure you that his brief case was not loaded with fishing gear. He brought papers and manuscripts, books and charts and statistics, and he kept talking to me about a control for cancer that he had discovered and he was using it on his patients and low and behold he was saving lives of men and women who previously he would have had to tell that they were terminal and there was nothing more he could do.

He kept telling me about this and I had really no particular interest in it. I was glad to hear it but I had about as much interest in learning the technical medical details as you or I might have in listening to an engineer talking about internal stresses in girder bridges. You know, these are things of great fascination to the engineer or the physician, but to the layperson it was not too interesting.

Finally he began to tell me about the fact that "they" were suppressing this. "They" wouldn't let him use it, "they" were harassing him. I thought all of a sudden, good grief, John. Why he is becoming paranoid and I turned to him, and I remember very distinctly, I said, "Wait a minute, who are "they" John? Do you mean to tell me that there are people in the medical profession or in government or anywhere in the world who are so low and so crass, so mean, as to deliberately withhold a control for cancer?" And I didn't realize it at the time, but with the asking of that question my curiosity was already aroused and I was launched even then on an investigative research project that was to take me two or two and a half years, and it led me to the discovery of one of the most amazing stories of the twentieth century.

This is a story in which the science of cancer therapy is not nearly as complicated as the politics of cancer therapy. This evening I am forced, because of the limitation of time, to assume that you are familiar with the science of Vitamin B–17 or laetrile. Now I realize that this may not be a safe assumption for many of you because I'm sure not all of you have see our film "World Without Cancer". If you have not seen the film, or if you are not familiar with the scientific question, all I can do is to tell you to do so as soon as possible.

But just so we start off on a common footing let me give you in a sentence or two a summary description of what the science of cancer therapy involves. Our research has led us to the realization that cancer is simply a deficiency disease, like scurvy, pellagra and pernicious anemia. It is caused by the lack of an essential food compound in modern man's diet. It is not caused by a virus or some mysterious toxin. It is caused by the lack of something. And the ultimate solution for the control of cancer, therefore, simply is to restore this essential food element to our daily intake. Now that, in a nutshell, is what this science is all about.

[ This lack of proper nutrients, which are responsible for maintaining our natural immune system, or other sources of stress, activates a "Pleomorphic" virus that has been proven conclusively to bring about most cancerous conditions — Tommy Cichanowski ]

This substance is known by several names as you already have been told in the introductory remarks this evening. It is known as Amygdalin when it is found in nature. As such, under the name of Amygdalin, it has been listed in the Standard Pharmathera for over a hundred years. It is identified and known for all this time, listed as a non-toxic. It has been used experimentally on a wide variety of ailments in every country of the world. It is particularly well known in Asia, but also definitely known in the United States and Europe. When it is described by nutritionists, it usually is referred to as nitrolosides. In its purified and concentrated form used specifically for cancer therapy, the form developed by Dr. Ernest T. Crebb, Jr., it is known as Laetrile.

I think the best way to describe this substance is simply to call it what it really is. It is a vitamin and it is vitamin B–17. That is how it will be known in the future — Vitamin B–17, because it is found in that grouping of vitamins known as the B–complex, of which there are some twenty-four fractions. It is found in that grouping of vitamins when it is found in natural foods. And since it was the seventh one to be isolated and identified, it is properly known as Vitamin B–17, and one last thing, just to give you a little more information about it, it is found in over 1,2000 edible plants around the world, most of which you wouldn't dream of eating: grasses, Johnson grass, Tunis grass, arrow grass, and things like that.

It is also found in the foods of primitive man, primitive cultures which even today are noted for their lack of cancer. There are many cultures in the world including the Akkadians(?) on the Black Sea, the Hunzakut of Northwest Pakistan, the Hopi and Navaho Native Americans, the traditional Eskimo, and groups like this in Africa, Latin America and all around the world which traditionally are cancer free, or relatively cancer free. And in every case, ladies and gentlemen, when you examine the natural diets of these cancer free populations you always find that the degree to which they are free of cancer is the same degree to which their foods are rich in vitamin B–17. There are no exceptions to that statement.

Now the science of cancer therapy, as I have mentioned, is an open and shut case. We could, in the film "World Without Cancer" and in other studies, go into the laboratories and experiments that have been conducted. We could explain the theory behind it, we could analyze the case histories of men and women who have been literally brought back from the edge of the grave, almost hopeless cases and all of that. That is an open and shut case. There is really no longer, or should no longer be any controversy about it. The controversy now centers around the politics and it is to that subject that I would like to address he remainder of my remarks this evening. So to repeat, the purpose of this presentation is not to discuss the science of cancer therapy, but to review at least the highlights of the politics of cancer therapy, and to answer to the best of my ability that very interesting question, "Who are "they" John?"

Now the politics of cancer therapy can be understood only in light of two grim and shocking realities and here they are. These are the two blocks into which my remarks will be divided: One, the scientific basis for the opposition against laetrile or B–17 has been blatantly dishonest — and we'll prove that. And the second reality is that the hidden source of this scientific corruption is a financial political interlock that constitutes the largest and most powerful cartel the world has ever known.

Let's begin then with reality number one. The scientific basis for the opposition against laetrile or vitamin B–17 has been blatantly dishonest. Not one physician out of a thousand has ever had a chance to use laetrile or vitamin B–17 himself. And yet, most physicians, if you ask them if laetrile works, they will say no, it does not. It's a fraud; it's quackery. And if you ask them how they know that, they say well, it has been analyzed by reputable sources and that is the verdict of official scientific investigation. And you say "Well, who says so?" Well, they don't rightly remember. Most of them think they have read about it in the American Medical Association Journal or a publication put out by the American Cancer Society or a statement made by the FDA officials or something like that. So you go to these prestigious organizations and you ask them where they got their information and again you find that the people involved in the American Cancer Society, the American Medical Association and the FDA have not tested laetrile themselves. They are, almost all of them, referring to an original research project that was conducted in the State of California in 1953. It is known as the California Report and it was published by the Cancer Advisory Commission of the California Medical Association.

So, now let's take a look at the California Report since this is the mainspring of 99% of the scientific and legal opposition to laetrile today. It is a very interesting experience to take a look at that California Report. It was written by two men, Dr. E. M. McDonald the Committee Chairman, and Dr. Henry Garland, the Committee Secretary. The Cancer Committee consisted of seven other prominent physicians but they had no part of the writing of that report. It was written only by McDonald and Garland. None of these men, ladies and gentlemen, including McDonald and Garland has ever used laetrile. All they had done was to summarize and interpret the written records of medical people who had done various phases, different kinds of experimentation of laetrile. They read these reports submitted to them, and then summarized them and issued their own report, which was to tell us what they found.

Now let's just stop for a second and ask ourselves, what kind of people were these individuals? What about their scientific judgments? Are they men whom you can trust? Well, you may not remember them by name, but McDonald and Garland were the two physicians who at that time were making headlines all across the country by claiming publicly and vociferously that there was absolutely no connection between cigarette smoking in particular and lung cancer. Now, for instance, Dr. Garland gave a speech in 1964 entitled "Smoking and Health". This was delivered before the Commonwealth Club in California in San Francisco on July 9, 1964, and here is what he said in part: "A current widely held hypothesis is that cigarette smoking is related to cancer. The hypothesis is not proven. Cigarettes are regarded by many as one of the better tranquilizers. It is likely that obesity is a greater hazard to American health than cigarettes," so says Dr. Garland. And then, Dr. McDonald was even more specific; here is a photocopy of an article, a feature article taken from "U.S. News and World Report" dated August 3, 1957, entitled "Here's Another View, Tobacco May Be Harmless".

And in this article here is a picture of Dr. McDonald sitting there very happy with a cigarette in his hand, smoke coming up, and underneath the caption, they quote Dr McDonald as saying, "The total evidence fails to establish a cause and effect relationship between smoking and cancer." And then in the article itself, he describes smoking as a harmless past time up to 24 cigarettes per day and then he says: "One could modify an old slogan, a pack a day keeps lung cancer away." Now, these are the two guys who wrote the California Report. It is interesting that if people had generally followed the medical advice of these two men there would have been additional millions of deaths from lung cancer in the United States today.

Now, as an interesting sidelight to all of this, Dr. McDonald died a few years later. He was incinerated in a fire started by his cigarette while he was asleep. Dr. Garland who had boasted that he was living proof that smoking was safe because he had been a chain smoker ever since he was a boy, he said, "Here I am, perfectly healthy, that's proof that you don't have to worry about smoking." He, of course died of lung cancer.

Now, but more important than this, ladies and gentlemen, is that McDonald and Garland, more important than their scientific ineptitude, is that they falsified their summary of the laetrile experiments and I mean exactly that when I use the word falsified, there is no other explanation for it. The reason I can say that is because ten years later, almost by a fluke, the original documents that McDonald and Garland used to analyze and upon which they based their summary were published and made part of the public record.

Ten years later, and for the first time, we were able to go to the original references and see what these experiments really did say. We didn't have to rely any longer on just the word of McDonald and Garland as to what they said. In 1963, the State of California Department of Public Health revised its original California Report, updated it, added a few more things to it and reprinted the whole thing, including those original studies in this book entitled, "Report by Cancer Advisory Council on Treatment of Cancer with Beta-cyanogenic Glucosides" or laetrile, and low and behold, when you go to the appendix and look at those old ten year old reports you find that McDonald and Garland had lied. For instance, in the original California Report of 1953, McDonald and Garland conspicuously quoted excerpts from one physician who said that he was unable to obtain cyanide from the laetrile. Now for those of you who are not familiar with the chemistry involved here you should know that at this point, at least, that cyanide is an essential part of the anti-cancer action of laetrile or vitamin B–17. Now don't let that scare you because I know we have a cultural antipathy towards cyanide in any form because somehow or another we know that they kill people with cyanide in the gas chamber and it is poisonous. Indeed, when taken in the gaseous form and when taken to excessive quantities, but cyanide in trace amounts as you will see, when you get into the scientific question in trace amounts, is not only safe but very essential for health.

In fact, many doctors have not thought about the fact that cyanocobaltin [ vitamin B–12 ] has a cyanide radical in the molecule. Also, the fact that cyanide is in the vitamin B–17 is about the same as saying well golly, we dare not eat any table salt because table salt is sodium chloride and you all know that chlorine gas is deadly. All right vitamin B–17 is hydrocyanic acid. It does contain a cyanide radical. And the fact that McDonald and Garland had said that they couldn't get any cyanide out of it when they tried to chemically break it down was used as powerful evidence indicating that the entire theory behind vitamin B–17 was a fraud.

Okay, we now go to Appendix IV, where we find a curious document labeled as the AMA lab Report No. 72W13371. It is dated January 14, 1953. And in this report it says, "After refluxing for three hours, the odor of hydrogen cyanide could be detected." Then it says, "the hydrogen cyanide was distilled into sodium hydroxide and determined by the Prussian Blue technique." They had obtained cyanide from it. So that was what you might call an unfair statement to indicate that they had not succeeded in doing so.

Now, the other misleading factor about this report is that McDonald and Garland had said in their original report that the biopsies of the cancer tissue taken from the cancer patients who had been treated with vitamin B–17 showed absolutely no trace whatsoever of positive chemical action on those tumors. That the men who did the examinations had examined them carefully and were absolutely unable to find any trace of beneficial affect. That was not true.

I refer you now to Appendix III. Here is a laboratory report entitled, "Autopsy-Findings in Patients Treated by Laetrile". It is dated September 10, 1952. First one comes from a Dr. J. L. Zandell, M. D., and here is what he says, now remember this is what was submitted to McDonald and Garland, he said: "Following are the impressions gained from reviewing the slides on autopsy cases, Serial No. M–1 to M–6. These slides were reviewed with the idea of detecting possible hystologic changes which might be interpreted as due to chemotheraputic agents or laetrile," and then he describes them, "Case M–1," he says, after describing what he observed under the microscope in very technical terms, "this might represent a chemical affect" and then for Case M–3, he describes changes and then he concludes, "I would consider this as a possible result of chemical affect."

He then summarizes, "Two cases showed moderate changes which might be considered as chemotheraputic toxic cellular changes." Then in the same appendix, there is the report of John W. Budd, M.D., dated December 15, 1952, he describes Case M–11, he says: "Spontaneous changes could produce all the evidence of degeneration seen here but an interpretation of chemotheraputic affect might be entertained". And, then Case M–6, he says, "The marked desmoplastic reaction is probably induced in part by therapy, I would suspect irradiation". Now forgetting what he suspects caused it, he did observe chemotheraputic changes.

See, these guys were so programmed against vitamin B–17, that what they were really saying is that, "Oh, I don't believe that laetrile can work to that any beneficial effect that we see has to be caused by radiation or prior treatment with drugs or spontaneous remission or something else." But the fact is plain that they did report four separate cases of positive action against the cancer cell.

And so when you go back to the original California Report which I have here as it was published in "California Medicine" which is the monthly publication of the California Medical Association, and you read this, McDonald and Garland had said the unanimous opinion of these consultants was that in no instance could any recognizable affect of the chemotheraputic agent be observed in the histology of these various neoplasms, no evidence of the cyanotoxic changes was observed by any of the consultants.

That, ladies and gentlemen, is a lie and this is the document, the California Report, which is the bedrock of the entire scientific and legal case against laetrile. Well, it's really worse than that. It is worse than just those outright lies in the report. For one thing, the doses in these experiments were much too small. Today it is common to use as much as two or three grams of Vitamin B–17 in a single injection and generally it takes somewhere between 30 and 40 grams total over the course of a week to ten days before the average cancer patient is able to report tangible signs of progress. Thirty to forty grams total.

In the California Medical Association experiments, the maximum dose was two grams. That was the total dosage. Two grams divided over twelve injections with a maximum single injection of less than 1/10th of that used today. Five patients received only two injections and five received only one so it was not at all surprising that they were not able to get significant results from Vitamin B–17. What is surprising is that the examination of those tumors showed any beneficial affect at all. That is really surprising considering the extremely low dosages they used in that experiment.

Well, since the California Report there have been other less publicized studies. There was one at Stanford University, one at the National Cancer Institute, one at the University of California at Berkeley, one at Diablo Laboratories at Berkeley and one at McGill University for the Canadian Medical Association.

Now I've read all of these. It takes a certain amount of tenacity to get through all of the gobbledygook in these things, but here is what you'd find. Some of these studies admitted openly that there was anticancer activity but they've all attributed it to other causes. They said well, since the theory is wrong with laetrile, we know that it can't be the laetrile doing these things, so it must have been a spontaneous remission or the delayed benefits radiation or something like that. Most of these patients had already had other treatments before they started on laetrile so they explained them away with other causes. Some of these studies were toxicity studies only, which means that they were just checking to see just how much of the material they could give the poor little rats before they got sick or died. They weren't checking for anti-cancer affect at all but just toxicity levels.

All of those studies involved transplanted tumors rather than spontaneous tumors, and they were transplanted on mice rather than humans and some of them involved tumors in laboratory dishes that could be incubated that were weren't even attached to living creatures at all. You don't have to be a scientist to realize that transplanted tumors are different than spontaneous ones. Mice are different than human beings and certainly tumors in a dish react differently than tumors on a living creature.

Now in almost all of these cases, ladies and gentlemen, the criterion used for whether or not the laetrile was effective was the question of how much the tumor was reduced in size. The tumor reduction was the criterion. Now that may sound very plausible at first. We tend to think of cancer as being a tumor, and if we cure cancer we would like to see that tumor disappeared, but the fact of the matter is that most tumors are a mixture of benign and malignant tissues and some tumors have very little real cancer in them, mostly benign tissues, the attempt of body apparently, to seal off the malignant tissues.

Now, I'm sure you've all known of cases where the person has gone in for surgery and had a rather large tumor removed and then they were told by their physician they were very fortunate because that tumor was benign and had no cancer tissue in it at all or very little, or they weren't able to find any at all. There probably was some in there but it was so small they couldn't find it. Now it's obvious that tumors that are made up of non-cancerous tissues, are not going to shrink when you kill all the cancer cells and this is especially true with transplanted tumors. The only ones that will work in a transplant, as you know the body has rejection mechanisms, the only ones they can generally get to stick, you might say, or to stay, or survive, are those which generally have two or three percent cancer tissue in them. So in these cases, what I'm saying is that even if the Vitamin B–17 were 100% effective the reduction of tumor size would be only two or three percent at the most. So naturally, that criterion did not produce positive results and in some cases in these experiments, the materials used may not have even been laetrile in the beginning.

Now that is a tremendous handicap, ladies and gentlemen, against a laboratory experiment or a pseudo scientific experiment. Now I say that not lightly, when I say that laetrile may not even have been used. For instance, this is an article that I found in the "Bio-Medical News" of July 1971, entitled "Laetrile's Value as Cancer Cure Still Unsubstantiated". In the article here is what it says: "Dr. Dean Burke, Head of the National Cancer Institute's Chemistry Laboratory of Bio-Chemistry, and highly respected by his colleagues as a biochemist, alleges that the animals were treated at inadequate concentrations with a drug of questionable origin and chemical authenticity."

Dr. Bayard Morrison, assistant to Dr. Carl G. Baker, Director of NCI, who considers laetrile worthless, and while unconvinced the drug has value, nevertheless, agrees with Dr. Burke that "inadequate concentrations of the drug were used." Dr. Morrison told Bio-Chemical News: "We cannot say that laetrile is no good without further proof." Well, at least there is one scientist, although he is biased against vitamin B–17 — he has never worked with it himself — naturally, he would have no reason to think that it would work, but at least he had the honesty to admit that so-called evidence against B–17 so far was totally inadequate, and it was impossible to say that it does not work without further testing.

Well, the latest test of these long series, then I'll wind this part up, was conducted at Sloan-Kettering. Sloan-Kettering Cancer Institute, as you know, is very well known around the country for its cancer work. At last it looked as though the establishment was going to get in on laetrile and everybody was very excited over the fact that they were finally doing some tests. Of course, those of us who had been watching what had happened in the past were not as enthused as some of my more naive compatriots, but anyway, we watched with great interest and we received, I won't say smuggled out of Sloan-Kettering, but through unofficial channels we got a copy of their report.

This is a Sloan-Kettering Report dated June 13, 1973. The experiments were conducted by Dr. Hiyamitsu Sugura. He lists all of his laboratory experiments on mice and so forth and here's what he says in part: "The results clearly show that amygdalin significantly inhibits the appearance of lung metastasis in mice bearing spontaneous mammary tumors." Now that is significant. Let me just stop. These were spontaneous mammary tumors. They weren't transplants. These were the hard ones to get and so he said that they significantly inhibited the appearance of lung metastasis or spreading of cancer 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 and then he said the improvement of health and appearance of the treated animals in comparison to those in the controlled group is always a common observation.

Now that was the internal report of Dr. Sugiura at Sloan-Kettering and this was given to us in about September of 1973. We were told that in November, Sloan-Kettering was going to send a representative to an international cancer convention or conference in Baden-Baden, Germany, and make public what they had found and were referring to in this report. They did so. On November 1973 a Sloan-Kettering representative stood up in Baden-Baden and before the whole world, before cancer experts from many of the nations of the world, and described the results of this test and, of course, many pro-laetrile people were ecstatic with joy. At last, they said, a breakthrough had come.

I was less than ecstatic. I am paranoid if you remember, and I wasn't ready to say that the battle was over. There is nothing worse or less humble than a person quoting himself, but I am going to do that now. I wrote an article for "The Committee For Freedom of Choice in Cancer Therapy" that was sent out in October 1973, and this was before the Sloan-Kettering announcement if you remember. So we wrote this article for "The Committee for Freedom of Choice", and bear in mind, one month before the public announcement at Baden-Baden. I'm going to read to you just a part of it. "Sloan-Kettering is, of course, the epitome of the orthodox medical establishment. With untold millions of dollars channeled through its facilities in the war on cancer it would be embarrassing to say the least, merely to end up serving the function of confirming what a handful of independent researchers without a penny of tax money to support them, have been saying for over twenty years. A triumph by free enterprise of such magnitude simply must not be acknowledged by the establishment, which is so deeply committed to government subsidies, government programs, and government controls."

Then, I had a lot of other unkind things to say about Sloan-Kettering. I conclude it by saying this, "We can look forward to the prospects of B–17 mass produced either under the name of amygdalin or in conjunction with some man-made compound under an entirely different name, and then distributed through existing channels of prescription drugs. There will be little or no price competition in such distribution and although the actual price will not seem unreasonable considering the benefits derived there will be an overly ample profit margin for the manufacturers. Above all, however, it will not be regarded as a nutritional factor or as a vitamin and thus the general prestige and sales market for drugs will not be endangered. The present drive of establishment medicine against vitamins consequently can continue without hindrance. All of this is part of the anticipated scenario, which begins with the tests of Sloan-Kettering." Will it turn out this way? Of course, only time will tell.

Perhaps even this prediction, if read by enough people, could set into motion a series of events that could cause it not to come to pass. As a matter of fact, that is the very prediction that is being made. It is axiomatic that deception cannot be successful if the person to be deceived is warned in advance by making it clear before hand what is expected. It is this author's hope either to thwart the deceivers altogether or at least to force them to seek an alternative course which either will be less harmful or more obvious.

Well, I honestly believe that we might have done some good in forcing them into an alternate course, one which was certainly more obvious. I was approached by a person who had an inside track into Sloan-Kettering, very close to the top people there. He told me that Sloan-Kettering was very upset by the harsh tones, by this kind of talk about conspiracies, and drug profits and people deliberately holding back controls, and so forth. He said to me, the people at Sloan-Kettering are receiving pressure from above to get out of this entire laetrile thing entirely, that they were told to forget it, drop it, and he said they're good men. They want to help you, they want to be on your side but you are just making it hard for them by calling Sloan-Kettering the establishment and so forth. Tone it down so they can come closer to your position without losing face!

What an incredible statement that was. Because you realize that these are men who are charged with the very serious responsibility of finding a control or cure for cancer as soon as possible. Millions of people are suffering and dying from this disease and they are worried about saving face and doing it so that it is politically expedient. They are worried about who criticizes whom and what terms they use. They are worried about their jobs. They are worried about pressure from above instead of calling a spade a spade and saying, "look this stuff works." Well, we didn't tone it down because I didn't think they would have the guts to go through with it. I didn't think, I was hoping I was wrong, but I didn't think that they would be able to stand up to this pressure from above that we will be discussing later on, and they didn't.

This is the January 10, 1974 copy of the Los Angeles Times. There was an article there heading "A Controversial Drug", and in it said Dr. Robert A. Goode, President and Director of the Sloan-Kettering Institute of Cancer Research, "at this moment there is no evidence that laetrile has any affect on cancer." That's two months after their report at Baden-Baden, Germany. Two months after they announced to the world, to all the experts in the world that laetrile was effective. Now two months later, they reversed their position and said, "At this moment there is no evidence that laetrile has any affect on cancer." And with regard to that report of Dr. Sugura, he said, "A premature leak last fall, of test information from the laboratory, had given thousands of cancer victims false hope that laetrile might work." Premature leak meaning their own public announcement at an international forum. These, of course, are lies. Lies spoken by highly respected scientists who are leaders in the fight against cancer. And it is certainly no exaggeration to say that the so-called scientific basis for the opposition against vitamin B–17 has been blatantly dishonest. Which is our reality number one. Why, why did these men lie? Why have the scientific facts been distorted? Why are they maneuvering to cover their tracks? That leads to reality number two.

Reality number two is a financial political interlock that constitutes the largest, most powerful cartel this world has ever known. Now, ladies and gentlemen, this is going to be new to many of you, I believe. It certainly was new to me. Two years ago, I used to think I was pretty hot stuff. I knew a lot about conspiracies and world politics. I had spent a lot of my time reading about these subjects.

I didn't know anything about what I am going to tell you. I hadn't even the slightest inkling of it. The information that follows is taken primarily from government hearings that transpired between 1928 and 1946. All there. Some of those hearings are dusty and yellowed but they are there. These are hearings that were conducted into such topics as Nazi propaganda, munitions industry, cartels, national defense, patents, lobbies, banking and currency, the court records of the Nuremberg Trials, and are loaded with information in dozens of standard reference volumes in any library. In other words, what I am saying is that while the information I am going to give you now is not widely known, it is not secret either. It is simply a matter of public record for anyone who wants to take the trouble to dig it out. Now here is that story.

There came into being after World War I, a cartel centered in Germany, but it existed all over the world. It was known as I. G. Farben. I. G. stands for Interessen Gemeinschaft, which is German for "Community of Interests" or a cartel, if you want to say cartel. [or Interessengemeinschaft — "Association of Common Interests"]

Farben is the German word for dyes. Now that's a deceptively innocently sounding word because it conceals the whole field of chemistry including all industrial and commercial chemicals, but including especially munitions and drugs. Historically, when Farben started into the chemistry industry, it was primarily with dyestuffs and so the word Farben was sort of a historical carryover of its origins. But the word Farben today is used to define or cover the entire field of chemistry especially munitions and drugs. This cartel is known as I. G. Farben today. For those of you who travel in Europe you can see the I. G. Farben all over.

Now to define a cartel. There is sometimes a fuzzy understanding of what that word means. A cartel comes into existence when two or more companies or group of companies cross national lines, sign a contractual agreement to reduce competition between them. Let's imagine that I own a giant corporation in America, and you owned one in Europe and we come together and say look, why should we cut each other's throats over prices on our products. I'll specialize in automobiles, you specialize in tractors. Let's agree not to compete. You don't produce automobiles, and I won't produce tractors and we'll get along fine. That's an agreement we seek, and if we both sign it, we both agree to it, we now become a cartel.

Cartels are formed with large companies agreeing not to compete on price, not to compete on products divided up world markets by saying you can have Latin America, I take North America. They really do these things by cartel agreements. And the end result then, is not a single company, a still separate company, but as they add more and more agreements not to compete in this field or that field, finally they begin to act more as a single company, and they provide a unified front to the consumer. The consumer has fewer and fewer choices. You may have noticed for instance, that while your local gas stations may compete price wise with gas wars as they used to back in the good old days, the gasoline companies themselves do not. There is no competition between Shell, Texaco and Standard Oil.

This is also true in the entire chemical field. Not only petroleum, but all of chemistry. Dupont does not compete with any of the other chemical companies. Baer Aspirin does not compete with the others and so forth. They may compete with advertising and say well, look my aspirin is better quality then the other guy's aspirin, but that is the extent of the competition. So the point is that cartels simply are contractual agreements to reduce or eliminate competition. The end result of this is higher prices to the consumer, and less product selection.

It is important to keep this in mind because most people think that cartels are monopolies. This is what I was taught in school. That monopolies are the product of free enterprise capitalistic system. Competition brought about monopolies and of course, just the opposite is true. Monopolies are not the result of competition but the escape from competition. Old John D. Rockefeller was quoted many, many times in all of his biographies as saying, "Competition is a sin." Rockefeller built his entire empire on that concept. Competition was a sin. Free enterprise was a sin. Why compete? Why cut each other's throat? He took the strongest of his competitors and brought them with him. He made them partners in his ventures. The weaker competitors he brought in as stockholders. The ones who wouldn't cooperate he crushed. That's the building of monopoly, not competition.

It is important to know also before moving on to the other aspects of I. G. Farben, that this was the controlling, creating force behind Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Regime. This is a thoroughly documented fact that is again not widely known, but is certainly no secret. Hitler was simply one of many political figures in pre-Nazi Germany and it was the policy of Farben to finance all parties, have liaisons with all political parties. The same operation was conducted there that often is used in local politics in this country where contractors will contribute large sums to all parties for city council. All of them get the same amount of money, so regardless of who wins, they've got a friend on the city council. I. G. Farben was doing this in National Politics in Germany. But, at the crucial time in German history there was a decision made in the highest levels in Farben to throw the entire weight of this gigantic enterprise behind Hitler. They withdrew their support of the other candidates. They donated millions upon millions of Deutsche Marks to Hitler. He became a figure overnight. All of the newspapers in Germany which were owned by Farben or heavily beholden to Farben because of advertising or investments, all of a sudden, all of them turned their editorial policies over to Hitler and created the image of a great popular candidate and Hitler was made by I. G. Farben. This all came out of the records of the Nuremberg Trials and no other place.

It was brought out, for instance not at the Nuremberg Trials, but at a Senate Hearing, that a man by the name of I. V. Lee, who was well known in the United States at that time a public relations expert, was hired by old John D. Rockefeller to improve his public image. I. V. Lee was the man who told Rockefeller to start giving away a little bit of his money in conspicuous ways so as to begin to look like a philanthropist. Lee told him to give away money, especially for public buildings where his name could be in the cement outside in the front, like a hospital or library, so that thousands of people passing by everyday would see the Rockefeller library, the Rockefeller hospitals, etc. Just pennies to Rockefeller by comparison, but look at the good public relations it would be. I. V. Lee is the guy who told Rockefeller to carry shiny dimes with him, rolls of shiny dimes whenever he made public appearances and when the newsmen were there, he was to throw these shiny dimes out into the audience and the children would scamper around to get the dimes and, of course this would be different news so the photographers would take pictures, and they did, and it worked beautifully. The newspapers all across the country were always showing pictures of Rockefeller throwing out the shiny dimes. And through this kind of technique the image of Rockefeller gradually was changed from a miserly, old, mean man to a philanthropist who loved children. This was I. V. Lee's brainstorm.

I. V. Lee testified that he was hired by I. G. Farben to go to Germany and interview Adolf Hitler, Goehring and the rest of the Nazi regime to analyze their potential for public relations and to make suggestions on how they could put a favorable public image before the German and American people. I. V. Lee was hired by I. G. Farben to do this. There is no question when you get into the records that the Nazi regime was created by Farben. Now this again is a little bit different then is in the history books.

We are told that, in Nazi Germany, the big industrialists made a big mistake by cooperating with Hitler and they wound up being controlled by Hitler. That's what you read. The truth of the matter is that Hitler was always a puppet of the big industrialists. He was put forth as a façade, an excuse for controlling the economy. The economy of Germany was rigidly controlled and the people were told that it was controlled by the Fascist government, when in reality it was the cartel that was making the decisions and was using the government as a tool for enforcing on the economy all the regulations and controls which it, the cartel, had decided it wanted. These controls did several things. They eliminated all the competition against the cartel. They squeezed out the little guy. They squeezed out the small businessman. They destroyed him completely, and secondly, they regimented the entire German population. These were decisions made by the cartel. Okay, back to the cartel itself.

It was operative in 93 countries, in all of the continents of the world and, ladies and gentlemen, if you were to look at the list of corporations that it had interlocking agreements or cartel agreements with, it would take you all day just to read the list. There were in fact, over 2,000 companies in the world with interlocking agreements with I. G. Farben. Farben owned or controlled outright all of the heavy industry of Germany. You think immediately of the Krupp Steel Works. E. G. Krupp was one of the Board members of I. G. Farben. This is how it worked, it was all part of one big happy family. Through all of Germany, most of Europe, and much in the United States.

I would like to read to you now just a few companies, which were clearly in the orbit of ownership or control sphere, which were good old American companies. The Baer Company, by the way, Professor Baer was one of the founders of I. G. Farben. Baer Company, American I. G. Chemical Corporation, Agfa Ansco Corporation, Sterling Drugs, Winthrop Chemical, Metts Labs, J. T. Baker Chemicals, Hoffman-LaRoche, Jensen Salisbury Labs, Taylor Chemicals, Oxilite Chemical, Alba Pharmaceutical, Bristol Meyers Drug Inc., Vegets Inc., Sentower Co., Groselle Chemical, General Dye Stuff, American Magnesium, Life Savers Corp, Vicks Chemical, United Drugs, Cooke labs, Rexall-Liggett Drug Stores, General Analine and Film Corp, GAF, Ethical Drugs, and many, many more. It would take too long to read the complete list. Some of these you recognize that GAF are in themselves giant holding companies, which control as many as a hundred other large companies underneath them. These were all (part of) I. G. Farben.

Now Germany discovered, at the end of World War I, when it lost, that never again would it find itself in a position of fighting a war without petroleum gasoline. The leaders of Germany felt that one of the reasons they lost the war was because they didn't have an internal supply of gasoline. And so, after the war, they put their top chemists in I. G. Farben to work to find a way of producing gasoline out of the soil of Germany, and they came up with what is known as the hydrogenation process. You might keep this in mind when sitting in a gas line. They discovered a way of making high-grade gasoline out of low-grade coal. They called it the hydrogenation process, and they sent a communiqué to Standard Oil of New Jersey and invited them to send a representative to their Baldish plant to see what they had invented.

Up until this time, I. G. Farben was dealing primarily in the field of chemicals, drugs and munitions. It had not gotten into the area of petroleum. Standard Oil of New Jersey pretty well had that field locked up and so here was a chance they saw of merging these two giant cartels into a super giant cartel, but they had to have something to barter with.

So Standard Oil of New Jersey sent a representative, Frank Howard, a Vice President, to the Baldish plant in Germany. And what Mr. Howard saw there made the eyes bulge right out of his head. He sent a letter back to the President of Standard Oil who was at that time, Mr. Walter Tegal, and here in part is what he said in that letter: "Based upon my observations and discussions today, I think that this matter is the most important which has ever faced our company. The Baldish can make high-grade motor oil fuel from lignite and other low quality coal in amounts up to half the weight of the coal. This means the absolute independence of Europe on the matter of gasoline supplies. Straight price competition is all that is left." You could almost see the tears going down his cheek, "my word; we are going to have to compete on price. Straight price competition is all that is left. I shall not attempt to cover any details. I think this will be evident of my state of mind." It was turmoil right? That was March 1926. You know that Germany fought all of World War II on gasoline that was produced from coal. It was very feasible technology even today. They haven't forgotten.

Now, as a result of this, I. G. Farben and Standard Oil did get together on this. They decided they did not want to compete on price so the inevitable happened. After three year's negotiations, the two cartels were married, a phrase or term, which they themselves used. They married on November 9, 1929, the cartels formed a super cartel and the agreement they signed contained three primary provisions. They are:

Standard Oil received one-half ownership of the hydrogenation rights everywhere in the world, except in Germany. They weren't going to have to compete against that.
I. G. Farben received 546,000 shares of Standard Oil stock, which was valued at $30 million dollars. Now that was 1929. You can imagine what $30 million dollars would be worth today. And ...
Both cartels agreed never to compete with each other forever more.
They said that anytime I. G. Farben wanted to go into a field relating to petroleum they would do so jointly with Standard Oil and anytime that Standard Oil wanted to go into the field of chemicals or drugs or anything like that it would do so jointly with I. G. Farben. But above all, they must never compete and so they were married and out of that came literally, the largest and most powerful cartel the world has ever known, even though most people have never heard about it.

Now, as the Nazis prepared for war, it became obvious that a certain group of their cartel members would be on one side and another group would be on the other side. Now they had no particular loyalties to Germany or to the United States or to England or to any of the other countries that would be involved in the war. Their primary loyalty was to the cartel. That was their mother, their father, their protector and that was their life.

So they began to make arrangements to conceal their interconnect ownership in these various countries so that when the war came the countries involved wouldn't confiscate their properties. So what they did was to create a maze of ownership through Swiss Banks. It was called the Stuttgart circle and it was a brilliant maze. It took years to unravel it. Each company was bought out by another company and the Board of Directors were members of another company and you had to be a Houdini Magician to figure out what led to where. For example, all of the American holdings of I. G. Farben were eventually brought together in the General Analine and Film Corporation. Prior to that it had been under the general heading of American I. G. Well, that "I. G." that didn't sound good, that stood for Interessen Gemeinschaft, so they had to get rid of that. They changed the name from American I. G. to General Analine and Film Corporation. You "Sweet Adeline".

That's how it was known on the stock market. And then they got rid of all the German names on the Board of Directors like Schmidt, and replaced them with names like Tegal, good old American names, and then General Analine and Film was sold to a Swiss company, I. G. Chemy.

I. G. Chemy was owned by Swiss people, all Swiss ownership, mostly members of certain banks in Switzerland, and then you dig into that, oh, these are the banks which were set up by I. G. Farben, and you finally get back to it that all this was camouflaged merely to conceal the fact that nothing had changed at all except names and trails. It was still all owned by I. G. Farben.

At the end of World War II, when occupation forces moved into Frankfurt Germany, Frankfurt was leveled from a series of heavy bombing raids, but miraculously in the center of this rubble there was a tall building left standing with nary a scratch. That was the international headquarters of I. G. Farben. Somehow or another, the bombardiers had been instructed to miss that building and they did and we were told, at the time; well, we would need an office building for our occupational headquarters when they moved into Frankfurt and they selected that building. Of course, the truth of the matter is, that the Secretary of War at that time was a Rockefeller financial agent who had helped finance the building of that building in Frankfurt. That's the fact of the matter. The Rockefeller interests in the United States at that time dominated the Federal Government. They had surrounded President Roosevelt and Secretary of War, Secretary of State, and all of the top policy decision levels who were held by people who were within the Rockefeller or Standard Oil sphere of influence which was exactly the American arm of this cartel, and they were protecting their own interests over there.

As an aside, Ford Motor Company had plants in Germany and in Nazi occupied France, which were producing for the Nazis all during the war. IT & T had a large share of ownership in the Fasoldt Plant in Germany, which was producing fighter planes in Nazi Germany. So you see, these people weren't Americans, or Germans, they were cartelists. They were prepared to make profits from both sides of the war. They were willing to bomb factories and buildings but they wanted to preserve their share. The same reason, for instance, that the Standard Oil refineries and oil tanks were never bombed in North Vietnam while other things were. Those little paddle wheels took a terrific beating in the rice paddies but not the Standard Oil refineries for some reason. But anyway, getting back to the main track here.

When we moved in and took over the Frankfurt headquarters of I. G. Farben, we inherited all these documents in the filing cabinets. They had destroyed many of them but, of course, many of them remained. Some of these wound up being read into the Congressional hearings, to which I have referred to earlier. One of those captured documents read as follows: "After the first war we came more and more to camouflage our foreign companies in such a way that the participation of I. G. in these firms was not shown. In the course of time the system became more and more perfect for a variety of reasons. It is of the utmost importance that the officials heading the agent firms, which are particularly well qualified to serve as cloaks, should be citizens of the country where they reside."

So, who owns these companies? The Securities and Exchange Commission began investigations of I. G. Farben in 1938 and they spun their wheels quite a bit, but one of the interesting things that came out of these hearings was the testimony of Walter Tegal who was, if you recall, the President of Standard Oil. Walter Tegal was also on the Board of American I. G., naturally so was Edsel Ford but that is beside the point.

Walter Tegal, a member of the Board of Directors of American I. G., President of Standard Oil, was called to the witness stand. He was asked if he knew who owned American I. G., the major stockholder of American I. G., the company on which he served as Board Member and he said, "I don't know." He didn't know who owned it! He didn't know how many shares of American I. G. were owned by I. G. Chemy or the Swiss firm. He didn't know who owned I. G. Chemy. In fact, it was pointed out to him that over 500 shares of American I. G. were issued in his name, in Walter Tegal's name. Who owned those shares? He said, "I don't know." He didn't know anything. Or, so he said.

The facts came out later, of course, that he was lying. He was acting as the confidential agent of the I. G. Rockefeller cartel, which is why he was President of Standard Oil. You don't think people like that get to be president of these multi-national companies because they are able to be super executives because of deals like this. Not that they are sloppy executives, because they are good executives, but the primary quality for being the head of these super national organizations is being on the inside and be willing and able to transact confidential deals like this.

The cartel prospered through, and by World War II and with the sale of General Analine and Film in 1962 — I should explain something about that — in spite of all the camouflage it was generally accepted that still, General Analine and Film was indeed owned by nationals of Germany, which was at that time a foreign power and an enemy power. General Analine, and Film was put in receivership operated by the alien property custodians. In other words, it was put in receivership by the Federal Government. At the end of the war it became a problem of what to do with General Analine and Film. It was the resolve of Congress not to give it back to German nationals.

So after many years of haggling, it was decided to sell it at public auction under the direction of Attorney General, Robert Kennedy. It was put on the block in 1962 and was sold to the highest bidder, and the whole thing smelled to high heavens. The highest bidder constituted a consortium of investment firms on Wall Street, all of which were within the Rockefeller sphere of influence. They were all Rockefeller Wall Street firms. They dominated the entire transaction and so what happened is that Rockefeller merely recovered what was his all along and nothing had changed. Except, the American people were told that General Analine and Film had been put up for sale and was no longer within the sphere of the cartel. But it remained where it had always been.

Now let's get back to the main topic of this presentation. The mechanism for the link up between the I. G. Rockefeller cartel and the politics of cancer therapy was the tax-exempt foundation. I won't go into too much of this because there are so many side subjects here we can't afford the time for them all, but the tax-exempt foundation was pioneered by Rockefeller and Carnegie. These two men were (very) close friends. They worked jointly like this through all of their ventures, even their philanthropic ventures using the same old policy of let's not compete. They always worked together with their philanthropic contributions so as not to overlap or compete that way. They got double value from their money. The tax-exempt foundations were pioneered to accomplish three things for these men:

To improve their public image through alleged philanthropy;
To preserve their vast fortunes from inheritance taxes and income taxes which the rest of the people must pay;
To finance commercially or ideologically profitable objectives under the guise of philanthropy.

Now, one such profitable commercial venture, which they can research through philanthropy is drug research. I want to stress to you that Rockefeller's group is the primary American focal point of the drug industry today, even though I cannot prove it because of the ways in which they have camouflaged and concealed their ownership. The only way I can make that statement is by giving you the long history which I had to ask you to sit through, because without that background you wouldn't believe that the Rockefellers have anything to do with drugs. If you go down to the companies themselves, La Roche or Winthrop Chemicals and you say, "Who owns these companies?" they won't show you a list of stockholders, but even if they did, you won't find Rockefellers name there.

You'll find dummy corporations. You'll find Swiss banks. You'll find names like the descendants of Walter Tegal, who own it in the name of somebody else, but you will not find the names of Standard Oil or Rockefeller. But the evidence is clear. The tracks are all around. Those are Rockefeller tracks all around the drug industry and they have it.

So, anytime a tax exempt foundation like the Rockefeller Foundation or the Carnegie Fund starts pumping money to a university, and they insist that that money be spent on drug research, the light goes on! Drug research, sure! Because out of that research comes new miracle drugs which they then can produce at great profit, and it was old John D. Rockefeller's idea that for every dollar given away in philanthropy you ought to be able to make at least a hundred back, otherwise don't give it. And this is how it works.

Ferdinand Lemberg, in his monstrous book called "The Rich and The Super Rich" has this to say on the subject. Now Mr. Lemberg and I disagree on almost everything but this one, he hit the nail on the head when he said, "Recipients of the money must be ideologically acceptable to the donors." There is a positive record showing that by these means purely corporate elements are able to influence research and many university policies, particularly in the selection of personnel. The foundations are staunch supporters of the physical sciences, the findings of which had many profit making applications in the corporate sphere, and indeed they do.

Now the mastermind behind this whole method of philanthropy was not really I. V. Lee, whom I mentioned a moment ago, but it was a man by the name of Fred Gates. He called himself the Reverend Fred Gates. He started the ministry but his forte was raising money, and he had done a very interesting service for George Pillsbury of the Pillsbury Flour fame.

Pillsbury had a reputation almost as bad as Rockefeller's, and Fred Gates went to him one day and said, "Pillsbury, if you give me some of your money, I will spend it in a way that you suddenly will become a great guy in the eyes of a lot of people." And out of that developed what Fred Gates called the Pillsbury Formula.

And it was simply this. He told Mr. Pillsbury, if you are going to build a hospital, don't just give all the money for a hospital, give half of it. "Matching funds." You put up half of it on the condition that the hospital raise the other half from the community, from the business leaders of the community. That way, he said, you still get the credit for it, because your name is still on it. You gave the biggest share but you only give half the money. You get the same value for only half the investment, not only that, you get hundreds, perhaps thousands of people scurrying around raising the other money in terms of $5.00, $10.00, $100 or a thousand dollars and everybody that is involved in the fund raising program now is committed to you. They identify with you psychologically. They are part of your team. And, think of all the good will you'll get that way. That was the Pillsbury Formula.

Old John D. Rockefeller was twisting his mustache as he watched that very carefully. He got hold of Fred Gates, and he brought him in and he picked his brain. Finally he decided to hire him and put him in charge of all the Rockefeller foundation ventures. Rockefeller himself wrote about Gates as follows, he said, "I realized I had met a commercial genius. I persuaded Mr. Gates to become a man of business which he did." One of the first foundations created by Fred Gates for John Rockefeller was called the General Education Forum.

Now the name would lead you to believe that this was concerned with upgrading

***************************************************************

The subject which brings us together this evening ladies and gentlemen, is a uniquely sobering one. Any factor which could cause so much as one lingering, painful, premature death should be a sobering factor and one against which we would mount every resource at our command. Cancer is not going to cause just one premature death. It is going to account for one out of every four of us here this evening, and indeed, everyone in these United States, unless scientific research discovers a means to a control, which can produce a world without cancer.

Most of you are aware of this; there is probably no one in this audience or on this (planet) whose life has not been deeply touched by the loss of a loved one to cancer, and some may be here solely in the hope that a means may be revealed to them here tonight by which a friend or a relative now suffering perhaps might be saved.

The Committee for Freedom of Choice in Cancer Therapy believes that a material which has been widely tested shows great promise as a major weapon against cancer. Indeed, that it shows great promises as being the sought after cancer control agent. I am speaking, of course, of Laetrile, also known as Amygdalin or Vitamin B–17. But this Committee was formed because, as the title suggests, we are being denied freedom of choice in testing and developing the full potential of laetrile which experience suggests, is there to be developed, and we are being denied the right to use laetrile right now to that degree of life saving benefit already known to definitely exist.

Our speaker tonight is Mr. G. Edward Griffin, who was one of the founders of the Committee for Freedom of Choice in Cancer Therapy. This will hardly come as a surprise to many of you who have come to expect to find Ed Griffin in the forefront of any special battle involving the preservation of individual freedoms. Mr. Griffin has become well known because of his unique talent for researching obscure and difficult topics and then presenting them in clear, concise terms that all can understand. But, perhaps, you are not aware of how young he was when he first displayed his talent for work in serious matters affecting the country.

Ed was just 15 when he delivered a speech on Patrick Henry at the annual national oratorical contest sponsored by the Hearst newspapers, and won first prize. During his senior year in high school, he was master of ceremonies of his own CBS radio network program, "Make Way For Youth". Then he was awarded a "Regions Alumni Scholarship" to the University of Michigan, where he received his Bachelor of Arts Degree.

In addition to two years in the Army, Mr. Griffin served as a radio announcer news commentator, assistant TV director and insurance man before commencing his career as an author, narrator and producer of documentary films and books, which has established his national reputation. Among these, many familiar to most of you, are the "OSHA Controversy", "The Capitalist Conspiracy More Deadly Than War", "The Grand Design", "The Great Prison Break", "The Fearful Master" and most recently, "A World Without Cancer". He is now the President of "American Media", a publishing and film production company in Southern California, where he lives with his wife and four children.

Tonight, he will speak to us on the politics of cancer therapy. Ladies and gentlemen, it is my honor and privilege to present Mr. Ed Griffin.

The first time I was introduced to the subject of Laetrile or vitamin therapy in the control of cancer, was when I was on a short fishing trip with Dr. John Richardson, a physician in San Francisco, who as you probably know, is in the forefront of the legal battle to establish the physician's right to use laetrile or vitamin therapy or anything he wishes to use, in the treatment of his patients. Because he was using laetrile last year he was arrested by the FDA, and he is taking this case to the courts. I think he stands an excellent chance of winning but, of course, that remains yet to be seen. The whole purpose, the initial trigger behind the formation of the Committee for Freedom of Choice in Cancer Therapy was to rally nationwide support behind not only Dr. Richardson but other physicians who hopefully would have the courage to join with him and challenge the establishment, if you will, the bureaucracy, in the right for a physician to have freedom of choice in this regard.

At Any rate, I have known John for quite a while, and we were on this fishing trip up in Oregon. If you ever have the chance to meet this man you will recognize immediately that he is a very intense person. I was trying to enjoy the babbling stream, the fresh air, the green trees, the blue sky and he brought his brief case with him. I can assure you that his brief case was not loaded with fishing gear. He brought papers and manuscripts, books and charts and statistics, and he kept talking to me about a control for cancer that he had discovered and he was using it on his patients and low and behold he was saving lives of men and women who previously he would have had to tell that they were terminal and there was nothing more he could do.

He kept telling me about this and I had really no particular interest in it. I was glad to hear it but I had about as much interest in learning the technical medical details as you or I might have in listening to an engineer talking about internal stresses in girder bridges. You know, these are things of great fascination to the engineer or the physician, but to the layperson it was not too interesting.

Finally he began to tell me about the fact that "they" were suppressing this. "They" wouldn't let him use it, "they" were harassing him. I thought all of a sudden, good grief, John. Why he is becoming paranoid and I turned to him, and I remember very distinctly, I said, "Wait a minute, who are "they" John? Do you mean to tell me that there are people in the medical profession or in government or anywhere in the world who are so low and so crass, so mean, as to deliberately withhold a control for cancer?" And I didn't realize it at the time, but with the asking of that question my curiosity was already aroused and I was launched even then on an investigative research project that was to take me two or two and a half years, and it led me to the discovery of one of the most amazing stories of the twentieth century.

This is a story in which the science of cancer therapy is not nearly as complicated as the politics of cancer therapy. This evening I am forced, because of the limitation of time, to assume that you are familiar with the science of Vitamin B–17 or laetrile. Now I realize that this may not be a safe assumption for many of you because I'm sure not all of you have see our film "World Without Cancer". If you have not seen the film, or if you are not familiar with the scientific question, all I can do is to tell you to do so as soon as possible.

But just so we start off on a common footing let me give you in a sentence or two a summary description of what the science of cancer therapy involves. Our research has led us to the realization that cancer is simply a deficiency disease, like scurvy, pellagra and pernicious anemia. It is caused by the lack of an essential food compound in modern man's diet. It is not caused by a virus or some mysterious toxin. It is caused by the lack of something. And the ultimate solution for the control of cancer, therefore, simply is to restore this essential food element to our daily intake. Now that, in a nutshell, is what this science is all about.

[ This lack of proper nutrients, which are responsible for maintaining our natural immune system, or other sources of stress, activates a "Pleomorphic" virus that has been proven conclusively to bring about most cancerous conditions — Tommy Cichanowski ]

This substance is known by several names as you already have been told in the introductory remarks this evening. It is known as Amygdalin when it is found in nature. As such, under the name of Amygdalin, it has been listed in the Standard Pharmathera for over a hundred years. It is identified and known for all this time, listed as a non-toxic. It has been used experimentally on a wide variety of ailments in every country of the world. It is particularly well known in Asia, but also definitely known in the United States and Europe. When it is described by nutritionists, it usually is referred to as nitrolosides. In its purified and concentrated form used specifically for cancer therapy, the form developed by Dr. Ernest T. Crebb, Jr., it is known as Laetrile.

I think the best way to describe this substance is simply to call it what it really is. It is a vitamin and it is vitamin B–17. That is how it will be known in the future — Vitamin B–17, because it is found in that grouping of vitamins known as the B–complex, of which there are some twenty-four fractions. It is found in that grouping of vitamins when it is found in natural foods. And since it was the seventh one to be isolated and identified, it is properly known as Vitamin B–17, and one last thing, just to give you a little more information about it, it is found in over 1,2000 edible plants around the world, most of which you wouldn't dream of eating: grasses, Johnson grass, Tunis grass, arrow grass, and things like that.

It is also found in the foods of primitive man, primitive cultures which even today are noted for their lack of cancer. There are many cultures in the world including the Akkadians(?) on the Black Sea, the Hunzakut of Northwest Pakistan, the Hopi and Navaho Native Americans, the traditional Eskimo, and groups like this in Africa, Latin America and all around the world which traditionally are cancer free, or relatively cancer free. And in every case, ladies and gentlemen, when you examine the natural diets of these cancer free populations you always find that the degree to which they are free of cancer is the same degree to which their foods are rich in vitamin B–17. There are no exceptions to that statement.

Now the science of cancer therapy, as I have mentioned, is an open and shut case. We could, in the film "World Without Cancer" and in other studies, go into the laboratories and experiments that have been conducted. We could explain the theory behind it, we could analyze the case histories of men and women who have been literally brought back from the edge of the grave, almost hopeless cases and all of that. That is an open and shut case. There is really no longer, or should no longer be any controversy about it. The controversy now centers around the politics and it is to that subject that I would like to address he remainder of my remarks this evening. So to repeat, the purpose of this presentation is not to discuss the science of cancer therapy, but to review at least the highlights of the politics of cancer therapy, and to answer to the best of my ability that very interesting question, "Who are "they" John?"

Now the politics of cancer therapy can be understood only in light of two grim and shocking realities and here they are. These are the two blocks into which my remarks will be divided: One, the scientific basis for the opposition against laetrile or B–17 has been blatantly dishonest — and we'll prove that. And the second reality is that the hidden source of this scientific corruption is a financial political interlock that constitutes the largest and most powerful cartel the world has ever known.

Let's begin then with reality number one. The scientific basis for the opposition against laetrile or vitamin B–17 has been blatantly dishonest. Not one physician out of a thousand has ever had a chance to use laetrile or vitamin B–17 himself. And yet, most physicians, if you ask them if laetrile works, they will say no, it does not. It's a fraud; it's quackery. And if you ask them how they know that, they say well, it has been analyzed by reputable sources and that is the verdict of official scientific investigation. And you say "Well, who says so?" Well, they don't rightly remember. Most of them think they have read about it in the American Medical Association Journal or a publication put out by the American Cancer Society or a statement made by the FDA officials or something like that. So you go to these prestigious organizations and you ask them where they got their information and again you find that the people involved in the American Cancer Society, the American Medical Association and the FDA have not tested laetrile themselves. They are, almost all of them, referring to an original research project that was conducted in the State of California in 1953. It is known as the California Report and it was published by the Cancer Advisory Commission of the California Medical Association.

So, now let's take a look at the California Report since this is the mainspring of 99% of the scientific and legal opposition to laetrile today. It is a very interesting experience to take a look at that California Report. It was written by two men, Dr. E. M. McDonald the Committee Chairman, and Dr. Henry Garland, the Committee Secretary. The Cancer Committee consisted of seven other prominent physicians but they had no part of the writing of that report. It was written only by McDonald and Garland. None of these men, ladies and gentlemen, including McDonald and Garland has ever used laetrile. All they had done was to summarize and interpret the written records of medical people who had done various phases, different kinds of experimentation of laetrile. They read these reports submitted to them, and then summarized them and issued their own report, which was to tell us what they found.

Now let's just stop for a second and ask ourselves, what kind of people were these individuals? What about their scientific judgments? Are they men whom you can trust? Well, you may not remember them by name, but McDonald and Garland were the two physicians who at that time were making headlines all across the country by claiming publicly and vociferously that there was absolutely no connection between cigarette smoking in particular and lung cancer. Now, for instance, Dr. Garland gave a speech in 1964 entitled "Smoking and Health". This was delivered before the Commonwealth Club in California in San Francisco on July 9, 1964, and here is what he said in part: "A current widely held hypothesis is that cigarette smoking is related to cancer. The hypothesis is not proven. Cigarettes are regarded by many as one of the better tranquilizers. It is likely that obesity is a greater hazard to American health than cigarettes," so says Dr. Garland. And then, Dr. McDonald was even more specific; here is a photocopy of an article, a feature article taken from "U.S. News and World Report" dated August 3, 1957, entitled "Here's Another View, Tobacco May Be Harmless".

And in this article here is a picture of Dr. McDonald sitting there very happy with a cigarette in his hand, smoke coming up, and underneath the caption, they quote Dr McDonald as saying, "The total evidence fails to establish a cause and effect relationship between smoking and cancer." And then in the article itself, he describes smoking as a harmless past time up to 24 cigarettes per day and then he says: "One could modify an old slogan, a pack a day keeps lung cancer away." Now, these are the two guys who wrote the California Report. It is interesting that if people had generally followed the medical advice of these two men there would have been additional millions of deaths from lung cancer in the United States today.

Now, as an interesting sidelight to all of this, Dr. McDonald died a few years later. He was incinerated in a fire started by his cigarette while he was asleep. Dr. Garland who had boasted that he was living proof that smoking was safe because he had been a chain smoker ever since he was a boy, he said, "Here I am, perfectly healthy, that's proof that you don't have to worry about smoking." He, of course died of lung cancer.

Now, but more important than this, ladies and gentlemen, is that McDonald and Garland, more important than their scientific ineptitude, is that they falsified their summary of the laetrile experiments and I mean exactly that when I use the word falsified, there is no other explanation for it. The reason I can say that is because ten years later, almost by a fluke, the original documents that McDonald and Garland used to analyze and upon which they based their summary were published and made part of the public record.

Ten years later, and for the first time, we were able to go to the original references and see what these experiments really did say. We didn't have to rely any longer on just the word of McDonald and Garland as to what they said. In 1963, the State of California Department of Public Health revised its original California Report, updated it, added a few more things to it and reprinted the whole thing, including those original studies in this book entitled, "Report by Cancer Advisory Council on Treatment of Cancer with Beta-cyanogenic Glucosides" or laetrile, and low and behold, when you go to the appendix and look at those old ten year old reports you find that McDonald and Garland had lied. For instance, in the original California Report of 1953, McDonald and Garland conspicuously quoted excerpts from one physician who said that he was unable to obtain cyanide from the laetrile. Now for those of you who are not familiar with the chemistry involved here you should know that at this point, at least, that cyanide is an essential part of the anti-cancer action of laetrile or vitamin B–17. Now don't let that scare you because I know we have a cultural antipathy towards cyanide in any form because somehow or another we know that they kill people with cyanide in the gas chamber and it is poisonous. Indeed, when taken in the gaseous form and when taken to excessive quantities, but cyanide in trace amounts as you will see, when you get into the scientific question in trace amounts, is not only safe but very essential for health.

In fact, many doctors have not thought about the fact that cyanocobaltin [ vitamin B–12 ] has a cyanide radical in the molecule. Also, the fact that cyanide is in the vitamin B–17 is about the same as saying well golly, we dare not eat any table salt because table salt is sodium chloride and you all know that chlorine gas is deadly. All right vitamin B–17 is hydrocyanic acid. It does contain a cyanide radical. And the fact that McDonald and Garland had said that they couldn't get any cyanide out of it when they tried to chemically break it down was used as powerful evidence indicating that the entire theory behind vitamin B–17 was a fraud.

Okay, we now go to Appendix IV, where we find a curious document labeled as the AMA lab Report No. 72W13371. It is dated January 14, 1953. And in this report it says, "After refluxing for three hours, the odor of hydrogen cyanide could be detected." Then it says, "the hydrogen cyanide was distilled into sodium hydroxide and determined by the Prussian Blue technique." They had obtained cyanide from it. So that was what you might call an unfair statement to indicate that they had not succeeded in doing so.

Now, the other misleading factor about this report is that McDonald and Garland had said in their original report that the biopsies of the cancer tissue taken from the cancer patients who had been treated with vitamin B–17 showed absolutely no trace whatsoever of positive chemical action on those tumors. That the men who did the examinations had examined them carefully and were absolutely unable to find any trace of beneficial affect. That was not true.

I refer you now to Appendix III. Here is a laboratory report entitled, "Autopsy-Findings in Patients Treated by Laetrile". It is dated September 10, 1952. First one comes from a Dr. J. L. Zandell, M. D., and here is what he says, now remember this is what was submitted to McDonald and Garland, he said: "Following are the impressions gained from reviewing the slides on autopsy cases, Serial No. M–1 to M–6. These slides were reviewed with the idea of detecting possible hystologic changes which might be interpreted as due to chemotheraputic agents or laetrile," and then he describes them, "Case M–1," he says, after describing what he observed under the microscope in very technical terms, "this might represent a chemical affect" and then for Case M–3, he describes changes and then he concludes, "I would consider this as a possible result of chemical affect."

He then summarizes, "Two cases showed moderate changes which might be considered as chemotheraputic toxic cellular changes." Then in the same appendix, there is the report of John W. Budd, M.D., dated December 15, 1952, he describes Case M–11, he says: "Spontaneous changes could produce all the evidence of degeneration seen here but an interpretation of chemotheraputic affect might be entertained". And, then Case M–6, he says, "The marked desmoplastic reaction is probably induced in part by therapy, I would suspect irradiation". Now forgetting what he suspects caused it, he did observe chemotheraputic changes.

See, these guys were so programmed against vitamin B–17, that what they were really saying is that, "Oh, I don't believe that laetrile can work to that any beneficial effect that we see has to be caused by radiation or prior treatment with drugs or spontaneous remission or something else." But the fact is plain that they did report four separate cases of positive action against the cancer cell.

And so when you go back to the original California Report which I have here as it was published in "California Medicine" which is the monthly publication of the California Medical Association, and you read this, McDonald and Garland had said the unanimous opinion of these consultants was that in no instance could any recognizable affect of the chemotheraputic agent be observed in the histology of these various neoplasms, no evidence of the cyanotoxic changes was observed by any of the consultants.

That, ladies and gentlemen, is a lie and this is the document, the California Report, which is the bedrock of the entire scientific and legal case against laetrile. Well, it's really worse than that. It is worse than just those outright lies in the report. For one thing, the doses in these experiments were much too small. Today it is common to use as much as two or three grams of Vitamin B–17 in a single injection and generally it takes somewhere between 30 and 40 grams total over the course of a week to ten days before the average cancer patient is able to report tangible signs of progress. Thirty to forty grams total.

In the California Medical Association experiments, the maximum dose was two grams. That was the total dosage. Two grams divided over twelve injections with a maximum single injection of less than 1/10th of that used today. Five patients received only two injections and five received only one so it was not at all surprising that they were not able to get significant results from Vitamin B–17. What is surprising is that the examination of those tumors showed any beneficial affect at all. That is really surprising considering the extremely low dosages they used in that experiment.

Well, since the California Report there have been other less publicized studies. There was one at Stanford University, one at the National Cancer Institute, one at the University of California at Berkeley, one at Diablo Laboratories at Berkeley and one at McGill University for the Canadian Medical Association.

Now I've read all of these. It takes a certain amount of tenacity to get through all of the gobbledygook in these things, but here is what you'd find. Some of these studies admitted openly that there was anticancer activity but they've all attributed it to other causes. They said well, since the theory is wrong with laetrile, we know that it can't be the laetrile doing these things, so it must have been a spontaneous remission or the delayed benefits radiation or something like that. Most of these patients had already had other treatments before they started on laetrile so they explained them away with other causes. Some of these studies were toxicity studies only, which means that they were just checking to see just how much of the material they could give the poor little rats before they got sick or died. They weren't checking for anti-cancer affect at all but just toxicity levels.

All of those studies involved transplanted tumors rather than spontaneous tumors, and they were transplanted on mice rather than humans and some of them involved tumors in laboratory dishes that could be incubated that were weren't even attached to living creatures at all. You don't have to be a scientist to realize that transplanted tumors are different than spontaneous ones. Mice are different than human beings and certainly tumors in a dish react differently than tumors on a living creature.

Now in almost all of these cases, ladies and gentlemen, the criterion used for whether or not the laetrile was effective was the question of how much the tumor was reduced in size. The tumor reduction was the criterion. Now that may sound very plausible at first. We tend to think of cancer as being a tumor, and if we cure cancer we would like to see that tumor disappeared, but the fact of the matter is that most tumors are a mixture of benign and malignant tissues and some tumors have very little real cancer in them, mostly benign tissues, the attempt of body apparently, to seal off the malignant tissues.

Now, I'm sure you've all known of cases where the person has gone in for surgery and had a rather large tumor removed and then they were told by their physician they were very fortunate because that tumor was benign and had no cancer tissue in it at all or very little, or they weren't able to find any at all. There probably was some in there but it was so small they couldn't find it. Now it's obvious that tumors that are made up of non-cancerous tissues, are not going to shrink when you kill all the cancer cells and this is especially true with transplanted tumors. The only ones that will work in a transplant, as you know the body has rejection mechanisms, the only ones they can generally get to stick, you might say, or to stay, or survive, are those which generally have two or three percent cancer tissue in them. So in these cases, what I'm saying is that even if the Vitamin B–17 were 100% effective the reduction of tumor size would be only two or three percent at the most. So naturally, that criterion did not produce positive results and in some cases in these experiments, the materials used may not have even been laetrile in the beginning.

Now that is a tremendous handicap, ladies and gentlemen, against a laboratory experiment or a pseudo scientific experiment. Now I say that not lightly, when I say that laetrile may not even have been used. For instance, this is an article that I found in the "Bio-Medical News" of July 1971, entitled "Laetrile's Value as Cancer Cure Still Unsubstantiated". In the article here is what it says: "Dr. Dean Burke, Head of the National Cancer Institute's Chemistry Laboratory of Bio-Chemistry, and highly respected by his colleagues as a biochemist, alleges that the animals were treated at inadequate concentrations with a drug of questionable origin and chemical authenticity."

Dr. Bayard Morrison, assistant to Dr. Carl G. Baker, Director of NCI, who considers laetrile worthless, and while unconvinced the drug has value, nevertheless, agrees with Dr. Burke that "inadequate concentrations of the drug were used." Dr. Morrison told Bio-Chemical News: "We cannot say that laetrile is no good without further proof." Well, at least there is one scientist, although he is biased against vitamin B–17 — he has never worked with it himself — naturally, he would have no reason to think that it would work, but at least he had the honesty to admit that so-called evidence against B–17 so far was totally inadequate, and it was impossible to say that it does not work without further testing.

Well, the latest test of these long series, then I'll wind this part up, was conducted at Sloan-Kettering. Sloan-Kettering Cancer Institute, as you know, is very well known around the country for its cancer work. At last it looked as though the establishment was going to get in on laetrile and everybody was very excited over the fact that they were finally doing some tests. Of course, those of us who had been watching what had happened in the past were not as enthused as some of my more naive compatriots, but anyway, we watched with great interest and we received, I won't say smuggled out of Sloan-Kettering, but through unofficial channels we got a copy of their report.

This is a Sloan-Kettering Report dated June 13, 1973. The experiments were conducted by Dr. Hiyamitsu Sugura. He lists all of his laboratory experiments on mice and so forth and here's what he says in part: "The results clearly show that amygdalin significantly inhibits the appearance of lung metastasis in mice bearing spontaneous mammary tumors." Now that is significant. Let me just stop. These were spontaneous mammary tumors. They weren't transplants. These were the hard ones to get and so he said that they significantly inhibited the appearance of lung metastasis or spreading of cancer 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 and then he said the improvement of health and appearance of the treated animals in comparison to those in the controlled group is always a common observation.

Now that was the internal report of Dr. Sugiura at Sloan-Kettering and this was given to us in about September of 1973. We were told that in November, Sloan-Kettering was going to send a representative to an international cancer convention or conference in Baden-Baden, Germany, and make public what they had found and were referring to in this report. They did so. On November 1973 a Sloan-Kettering representative stood up in Baden-Baden and before the whole world, before cancer experts from many of the nations of the world, and described the results of this test and, of course, many pro-laetrile people were ecstatic with joy. At last, they said, a breakthrough had come.

I was less than ecstatic. I am paranoid if you remember, and I wasn't ready to say that the battle was over. There is nothing worse or less humble than a person quoting himself, but I am going to do that now. I wrote an article for "The Committee For Freedom of Choice in Cancer Therapy" that was sent out in October 1973, and this was before the Sloan-Kettering announcement if you remember. So we wrote this article for "The Committee for Freedom of Choice", and bear in mind, one month before the public announcement at Baden-Baden. I'm going to read to you just a part of it. "Sloan-Kettering is, of course, the epitome of the orthodox medical establishment. With untold millions of dollars channeled through its facilities in the war on cancer it would be embarrassing to say the least, merely to end up serving the function of confirming what a handful of independent researchers without a penny of tax money to support them, have been saying for over twenty years. A triumph by free enterprise of such magnitude simply must not be acknowledged by the establishment, which is so deeply committed to government subsidies, government programs, and government controls."

Then, I had a lot of other unkind things to say about Sloan-Kettering. I conclude it by saying this, "We can look forward to the prospects of B–17 mass produced either under the name of amygdalin or in conjunction with some man-made compound under an entirely different name, and then distributed through existing channels of prescription drugs. There will be little or no price competition in such distribution and although the actual price will not seem unreasonable considering the benefits derived there will be an overly ample profit margin for the manufacturers. Above all, however, it will not be regarded as a nutritional factor or as a vitamin and thus the general prestige and sales market for drugs will not be endangered. The present drive of establishment medicine against vitamins consequently can continue without hindrance. All of this is part of the anticipated scenario, which begins with the tests of Sloan-Kettering." Will it turn out this way? Of course, only time will tell.

Perhaps even this prediction, if read by enough people, could set into motion a series of events that could cause it not to come to pass. As a matter of fact, that is the very prediction that is being made. It is axiomatic that deception cannot be successful if the person to be deceived is warned in advance by making it clear before hand what is expected. It is this author's hope either to thwart the deceivers altogether or at least to force them to seek an alternative course which either will be less harmful or more obvious.

Well, I honestly believe that we might have done some good in forcing them into an alternate course, one which was certainly more obvious. I was approached by a person who had an inside track into Sloan-Kettering, very close to the top people there. He told me that Sloan-Kettering was very upset by the harsh tones, by this kind of talk about conspiracies, and drug profits and people deliberately holding back controls, and so forth. He said to me, the people at Sloan-Kettering are receiving pressure from above to get out of this entire laetrile thing entirely, that they were told to forget it, drop it, and he said they're good men. They want to help you, they want to be on your side but you are just making it hard for them by calling Sloan-Kettering the establishment and so forth. Tone it down so they can come closer to your position without losing face!

What an incredible statement that was. Because you realize that these are men who are charged with the very serious responsibility of finding a control or cure for cancer as soon as possible. Millions of people are suffering and dying from this disease and they are worried about saving face and doing it so that it is politically expedient. They are worried about who criticizes whom and what terms they use. They are worried about their jobs. They are worried about pressure from above instead of calling a spade a spade and saying, "look this stuff works." Well, we didn't tone it down because I didn't think they would have the guts to go through with it. I didn't think, I was hoping I was wrong, but I didn't think that they would be able to stand up to this pressure from above that we will be discussing later on, and they didn't.

This is the January 10, 1974 copy of the Los Angeles Times. There was an article there heading "A Controversial Drug", and in it said Dr. Robert A. Goode, President and Director of the Sloan-Kettering Institute of Cancer Research, "at this moment there is no evidence that laetrile has any affect on cancer." That's two months after their report at Baden-Baden, Germany. Two months after they announced to the world, to all the experts in the world that laetrile was effective. Now two months later, they reversed their position and said, "At this moment there is no evidence that laetrile has any affect on cancer." And with regard to that report of Dr. Sugura, he said, "A premature leak last fall, of test information from the laboratory, had given thousands of cancer victims false hope that laetrile might work." Premature leak meaning their own public announcement at an international forum. These, of course, are lies. Lies spoken by highly respected scientists who are leaders in the fight against cancer. And it is certainly no exaggeration to say that the so-called scientific basis for the opposition against vitamin B–17 has been blatantly dishonest. Which is our reality number one. Why, why did these men lie? Why have the scientific facts been distorted? Why are they maneuvering to cover their tracks? That leads to reality number two.



Reality number two is a financial political interlock that constitutes the largest, most powerful cartel this world has ever known. Now, ladies and gentlemen, this is going to be new to many of you, I believe. It certainly was new to me. Two years ago, I used to think I was pretty hot stuff. I knew a lot about conspiracies and world politics. I had spent a lot of my time reading about these subjects.

I didn't know anything about what I am going to tell you. I hadn't even the slightest inkling of it. The information that follows is taken primarily from government hearings that transpired between 1928 and 1946. All there. Some of those hearings are dusty and yellowed but they are there. These are hearings that were conducted into such topics as Nazi propaganda, munitions industry, cartels, national defense, patents, lobbies, banking and currency, the court records of the Nuremberg Trials, and are loaded with information in dozens of standard reference volumes in any library. In other words, what I am saying is that while the information I am going to give you now is not widely known, it is not secret either. It is simply a matter of public record for anyone who wants to take the trouble to dig it out. Now here is that story.

There came into being after World War I, a cartel centered in Germany, but it existed all over the world. It was known as I. G. Farben. I. G. stands for Interessen Gemeinschaft, which is German for "Community of Interests" or a cartel, if you want to say cartel. [or Interessengemeinschaft — "Association of Common Interests"]

Farben is the German word for dyes. Now that's a deceptively innocently sounding word because it conceals the whole field of chemistry including all industrial and commercial chemicals, but including especially munitions and drugs. Historically, when Farben started into the chemistry industry, it was primarily with dyestuffs and so the word Farben was sort of a historical carryover of its origins. But the word Farben today is used to define or cover the entire field of chemistry especially munitions and drugs. This cartel is known as I. G. Farben today. For those of you who travel in Europe you can see the I. G. Farben all over.

Now to define a cartel. There is sometimes a fuzzy understanding of what that word means. A cartel comes into existence when two or more companies or group of companies cross national lines, sign a contractual agreement to reduce competition between them. Let's imagine that I own a giant corporation in America, and you owned one in Europe and we come together and say look, why should we cut each other's throats over prices on our products. I'll specialize in automobiles, you specialize in tractors. Let's agree not to compete. You don't produce automobiles, and I won't produce tractors and we'll get along fine. That's an agreement we seek, and if we both sign it, we both agree to it, we now become a cartel.

Cartels are formed with large companies agreeing not to compete on price, not to compete on products divided up world markets by saying you can have Latin America, I take North America. They really do these things by cartel agreements. And the end result then, is not a single company, a still separate company, but as they add more and more agreements not to compete in this field or that field, finally they begin to act more as a single company, and they provide a unified front to the consumer. The consumer has fewer and fewer choices. You may have noticed for instance, that while your local gas stations may compete price wise with gas wars as they used to back in the good old days, the gasoline companies themselves do not. There is no competition between Shell, Texaco and Standard Oil.

This is also true in the entire chemical field. Not only petroleum, but all of chemistry. Dupont does not compete with any of the other chemical companies. Baer Aspirin does not compete with the others and so forth. They may compete with advertising and say well, look my aspirin is better quality then the other guy's aspirin, but that is the extent of the competition. So the point is that cartels simply are contractual agreements to reduce or eliminate competition. The end result of this is higher prices to the consumer, and less product selection.

It is important to keep this in mind because most people think that cartels are monopolies. This is what I was taught in school. That monopolies are the product of free enterprise capitalistic system. Competition brought about monopolies and of course, just the opposite is true. Monopolies are not the result of competition but the escape from competition. Old John D. Rockefeller was quoted many, many times in all of his biographies as saying, "Competition is a sin." Rockefeller built his entire empire on that concept. Competition was a sin. Free enterprise was a sin. Why compete? Why cut each other's throat? He took the strongest of his competitors and brought them with him. He made them partners in his ventures. The weaker competitors he brought in as stockholders. The ones who wouldn't cooperate he crushed. That's the building of monopoly, not competition.

It is important to know also before moving on to the other aspects of I. G. Farben, that this was the controlling, creating force behind Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Regime. This is a thoroughly documented fact that is again not widely known, but is certainly no secret. Hitler was simply one of many political figures in pre-Nazi Germany and it was the policy of Farben to finance all parties, have liaisons with all political parties. The same operation was conducted there that often is used in local politics in this country where contractors will contribute large sums to all parties for city council. All of them get the same amount of money, so regardless of who wins, they've got a friend on the city council. I. G. Farben was doing this in National Politics in Germany. But, at the crucial time in German history there was a decision made in the highest levels in Farben to throw the entire weight of this gigantic enterprise behind Hitler. They withdrew their support of the other candidates. They donated millions upon millions of Deutsche Marks to Hitler. He became a figure overnight. All of the newspapers in Germany which were owned by Farben or heavily beholden to Farben because of advertising or investments, all of a sudden, all of them turned their editorial policies over to Hitler and created the image of a great popular candidate and Hitler was made by I. G. Farben. This all came out of the records of the Nuremberg Trials and no other place.

It was brought out, for instance not at the Nuremberg Trials, but at a Senate Hearing, that a man by the name of I. V. Lee, who was well known in the United States at that time a public relations expert, was hired by old John D. Rockefeller to improve his public image. I. V. Lee was the man who told Rockefeller to start giving away a little bit of his money in conspicuous ways so as to begin to look like a philanthropist. Lee told him to give away money, especially for public buildings where his name could be in the cement outside in the front, like a hospital or library, so that thousands of people passing by everyday would see the Rockefeller library, the Rockefeller hospitals, etc. Just pennies to Rockefeller by comparison, but look at the good public relations it would be. I. V. Lee is the guy who told Rockefeller to carry shiny dimes with him, rolls of shiny dimes whenever he made public appearances and when the newsmen were there, he was to throw these shiny dimes out into the audience and the children would scamper around to get the dimes and, of course this would be different news so the photographers would take pictures, and they did, and it worked beautifully. The newspapers all across the country were always showing pictures of Rockefeller throwing out the shiny dimes. And through this kind of technique the image of Rockefeller gradually was changed from a miserly, old, mean man to a philanthropist who loved children. This was I. V. Lee's brainstorm.

I. V. Lee testified that he was hired by I. G. Farben to go to Germany and interview Adolf Hitler, Goehring and the rest of the Nazi regime to analyze their potential for public relations and to make suggestions on how they could put a favorable public image before the German and American people. I. V. Lee was hired by I. G. Farben to do this. There is no question when you get into the records that the Nazi regime was created by Farben. Now this again is a little bit different then is in the history books.

We are told that, in Nazi Germany, the big industrialists made a big mistake by cooperating with Hitler and they wound up being controlled by Hitler. That's what you read. The truth of the matter is that Hitler was always a puppet of the big industrialists. He was put forth as a façade, an excuse for controlling the economy. The economy of Germany was rigidly controlled and the people were told that it was controlled by the Fascist government, when in reality it was the cartel that was making the decisions and was using the government as a tool for enforcing on the economy all the regulations and controls which it, the cartel, had decided it wanted. These controls did several things. They eliminated all the competition against the cartel. They squeezed out the little guy. They squeezed out the small businessman. They destroyed him completely, and secondly, they regimented the entire German population. These were decisions made by the cartel. Okay, back to the cartel itself.

It was operative in 93 countries, in all of the continents of the world and, ladies and gentlemen, if you were to look at the list of corporations that it had interlocking agreements or cartel agreements with, it would take you all day just to read the list. There were in fact, over 2,000 companies in the world with interlocking agreements with I. G. Farben. Farben owned or controlled outright all of the heavy industry of Germany. You think immediately of the Krupp Steel Works. E. G. Krupp was one of the Board members of I. G. Farben. This is how it worked, it was all part of one big happy family. Through all of Germany, most of Europe, and much in the United States.

I would like to read to you now just a few companies, which were clearly in the orbit of ownership or control sphere, which were good old American companies. The Baer Company, by the way, Professor Baer was one of the founders of I. G. Farben. Baer Company, American I. G. Chemical Corporation, Agfa Ansco Corporation, Sterling Drugs, Winthrop Chemical, Metts Labs, J. T. Baker Chemicals, Hoffman-LaRoche, Jensen Salisbury Labs, Taylor Chemicals, Oxilite Chemical, Alba Pharmaceutical, Bristol Meyers Drug Inc., Vegets Inc., Sentower Co., Groselle Chemical, General Dye Stuff, American Magnesium, Life Savers Corp, Vicks Chemical, United Drugs, Cooke labs, Rexall-Liggett Drug Stores, General Analine and Film Corp, GAF, Ethical Drugs, and many, many more. It would take too long to read the complete list. Some of these you recognize that GAF are in themselves giant holding companies, which control as many as a hundred other large companies underneath them. These were all (part of) I. G. Farben.

Now Germany discovered, at the end of World War I, when it lost, that never again would it find itself in a position of fighting a war without petroleum gasoline. The leaders of Germany felt that one of the reasons they lost the war was because they didn't have an internal supply of gasoline. And so, after the war, they put their top chemists in I. G. Farben to work to find a way of producing gasoline out of the soil of Germany, and they came up with what is known as the hydrogenation process. You might keep this in mind when sitting in a gas line. They discovered a way of making high-grade gasoline out of low-grade coal. They called it the hydrogenation process, and they sent a communiqué to Standard Oil of New Jersey and invited them to send a representative to their Baldish plant to see what they had invented.

Up until this time, I. G. Farben was dealing primarily in the field of chemicals, drugs and munitions. It had not gotten into the area of petroleum. Standard Oil of New Jersey pretty well had that field locked up and so here was a chance they saw of merging these two giant cartels into a super giant cartel, but they had to have something to barter with.

So Standard Oil of New Jersey sent a representative, Frank Howard, a Vice President, to the Baldish plant in Germany. And what Mr. Howard saw there made the eyes bulge right out of his head. He sent a letter back to the President of Standard Oil who was at that time, Mr. Walter Tegal, and here in part is what he said in that letter: "Based upon my observations and discussions today, I think that this matter is the most important which has ever faced our company. The Baldish can make high-grade motor oil fuel from lignite and other low quality coal in amounts up to half the weight of the coal. This means the absolute independence of Europe on the matter of gasoline supplies. Straight price competition is all that is left." You could almost see the tears going down his cheek, "my word; we are going to have to compete on price. Straight price competition is all that is left. I shall not attempt to cover any details. I think this will be evident of my state of mind." It was turmoil right? That was March 1926. You know that Germany fought all of World War II on gasoline that was produced from coal. It was very feasible technology even today. They haven't forgotten.

Now, as a result of this, I. G. Farben and Standard Oil did get together on this. They decided they did not want to compete on price so the inevitable happened. After three year's negotiations, the two cartels were married, a phrase or term, which they themselves used. They married on November 9, 1929, the cartels formed a super cartel and the agreement they signed contained three primary provisions. They are:

Standard Oil received one-half ownership of the hydrogenation rights everywhere in the world, except in Germany. They weren't going to have to compete against that.
I. G. Farben received 546,000 shares of Standard Oil stock, which was valued at $30 million dollars. Now that was 1929. You can imagine what $30 million dollars would be worth today. And ...
Both cartels agreed never to compete with each other forever more.
They said that anytime I. G. Farben wanted to go into a field relating to petroleum they would do so jointly with Standard Oil and anytime that Standard Oil wanted to go into the field of chemicals or drugs or anything like that it would do so jointly with I. G. Farben. But above all, they must never compete and so they were married and out of that came literally, the largest and most powerful cartel the world has ever known, even though most people have never heard about it.

Now, as the Nazis prepared for war, it became obvious that a certain group of their cartel members would be on one side and another group would be on the other side. Now they had no particular loyalties to Germany or to the United States or to England or to any of the other countries that would be involved in the war. Their primary loyalty was to the cartel. That was their mother, their father, their protector and that was their life.

So they began to make arrangements to conceal their interconnect ownership in these various countries so that when the war came the countries involved wouldn't confiscate their properties. So what they did was to create a maze of ownership through Swiss Banks. It was called the Stuttgart circle and it was a brilliant maze. It took years to unravel it. Each company was bought out by another company and the Board of Directors were members of another company and you had to be a Houdini Magician to figure out what led to where. For example, all of the American holdings of I. G. Farben were eventually brought together in the General Analine and Film Corporation. Prior to that it had been under the general heading of American I. G. Well, that "I. G." that didn't sound good, that stood for Interessen Gemeinschaft, so they had to get rid of that. They changed the name from American I. G. to General Analine and Film Corporation. You "Sweet Adeline".

That's how it was known on the stock market. And then they got rid of all the German names on the Board of Directors like Schmidt, and replaced them with names like Tegal, good old American names, and then General Analine and Film was sold to a Swiss company, I. G. Chemy.

I. G. Chemy was owned by Swiss people, all Swiss ownership, mostly members of certain banks in Switzerland, and then you dig into that, oh, these are the banks which were set up by I. G. Farben, and you finally get back to it that all this was camouflaged merely to conceal the fact that nothing had changed at all except names and trails. It was still all owned by I. G. Farben.

At the end of World War II, when occupation forces moved into Frankfurt Germany, Frankfurt was leveled from a series of heavy bombing raids, but miraculously in the center of this rubble there was a tall building left standing with nary a scratch. That was the international headquarters of I. G. Farben. Somehow or another, the bombardiers had been instructed to miss that building and they did and we were told, at the time; well, we would need an office building for our occupational headquarters when they moved into Frankfurt and they selected that building. Of course, the truth of the matter is, that the Secretary of War at that time was a Rockefeller financial agent who had helped finance the building of that building in Frankfurt. That's the fact of the matter. The Rockefeller interests in the United States at that time dominated the Federal Government. They had surrounded President Roosevelt and Secretary of War, Secretary of State, and all of the top policy decision levels who were held by people who were within the Rockefeller or Standard Oil sphere of influence which was exactly the American arm of this cartel, and they were protecting their own interests over there.

As an aside, Ford Motor Company had plants in Germany and in Nazi occupied France, which were producing for the Nazis all during the war. IT & T had a large share of ownership in the Fasoldt Plant in Germany, which was producing fighter planes in Nazi Germany. So you see, these people weren't Americans, or Germans, they were cartelists. They were prepared to make profits from both sides of the war. They were willing to bomb factories and buildings but they wanted to preserve their share. The same reason, for instance, that the Standard Oil refineries and oil tanks were never bombed in North Vietnam while other things were. Those little paddle wheels took a terrific beating in the rice paddies but not the Standard Oil refineries for some reason. But anyway, getting back to the main track here.

When we moved in and took over the Frankfurt headquarters of I. G. Farben, we inherited all these documents in the filing cabinets. They had destroyed many of them but, of course, many of them remained. Some of these wound up being read into the Congressional hearings, to which I have referred to earlier. One of those captured documents read as follows: "After the first war we came more and more to camouflage our foreign companies in such a way that the participation of I. G. in these firms was not shown. In the course of time the system became more and more perfect for a variety of reasons. It is of the utmost importance that the officials heading the agent firms, which are particularly well qualified to serve as cloaks, should be citizens of the country where they reside."

So, who owns these companies? The Securities and Exchange Commission began investigations of I. G. Farben in 1938 and they spun their wheels quite a bit, but one of the interesting things that came out of these hearings was the testimony of Walter Tegal who was, if you recall, the President of Standard Oil. Walter Tegal was also on the Board of American I. G., naturally so was Edsel Ford but that is beside the point.

Walter Tegal, a member of the Board of Directors of American I. G., President of Standard Oil, was called to the witness stand. He was asked if he knew who owned American I. G., the major stockholder of American I. G., the company on which he served as Board Member and he said, "I don't know." He didn't know who owned it! He didn't know how many shares of American I. G. were owned by I. G. Chemy or the Swiss firm. He didn't know who owned I. G. Chemy. In fact, it was pointed out to him that over 500 shares of American I. G. were issued in his name, in Walter Tegal's name. Who owned those shares? He said, "I don't know." He didn't know anything. Or, so he said.

The facts came out later, of course, that he was lying. He was acting as the confidential agent of the I. G. Rockefeller cartel, which is why he was President of Standard Oil. You don't think people like that get to be president of these multi-national companies because they are able to be super executives because of deals like this. Not that they are sloppy executives, because they are good executives, but the primary quality for being the head of these super national organizations is being on the inside and be willing and able to transact confidential deals like this.

The cartel prospered through, and by World War II and with the sale of General Analine and Film in 1962 — I should explain something about that — in spite of all the camouflage it was generally accepted that still, General Analine and Film was indeed owned by nationals of Germany, which was at that time a foreign power and an enemy power. General Analine, and Film was put in receivership operated by the alien property custodians. In other words, it was put in receivership by the Federal Government. At the end of the war it became a problem of what to do with General Analine and Film. It was the resolve of Congress not to give it back to German nationals.

So after many years of haggling, it was decided to sell it at public auction under the direction of Attorney General, Robert Kennedy. It was put on the block in 1962 and was sold to the highest bidder, and the whole thing smelled to high heavens. The highest bidder constituted a consortium of investment firms on Wall Street, all of which were within the Rockefeller sphere of influence. They were all Rockefeller Wall Street firms. They dominated the entire transaction and so what happened is that Rockefeller merely recovered what was his all along and nothing had changed. Except, the American people were told that General Analine and Film had been put up for sale and was no longer within the sphere of the cartel. But it remained where it had always been.

Now let's get back to the main topic of this presentation. The mechanism for the link up between the I. G. Rockefeller cartel and the politics of cancer therapy was the tax-exempt foundation. I won't go into too much of this because there are so many side subjects here we can't afford the time for them all, but the tax-exempt foundation was pioneered by Rockefeller and Carnegie. These two men were (very) close friends. They worked jointly like this through all of their ventures, even their philanthropic ventures using the same old policy of let's not compete. They always worked together with their philanthropic contributions so as not to overlap or compete that way. They got double value from their money. The tax-exempt foundations were pioneered to accomplish three things for these men:

To improve their public image through alleged philanthropy;
To preserve their vast fortunes from inheritance taxes and income taxes which the rest of the people must pay;
To finance commercially or ideologically profitable objectives under the guise of philanthropy.

Now, one such profitable commercial venture, which they can research through philanthropy is drug research. I want to stress to you that Rockefeller's group is the primary American focal point of the drug industry today, even though I cannot prove it because of the ways in which they have camouflaged and concealed their ownership. The only way I can make that statement is by giving you the long history which I had to ask you to sit through, because without that background you wouldn't believe that the Rockefellers have anything to do with drugs. If you go down to the companies themselves, La Roche or Winthrop Chemicals and you say, "Who owns these companies?" they won't show you a list of stockholders, but even if they did, you won't find Rockefellers name there.

You'll find dummy corporations. You'll find Swiss banks. You'll find names like the descendants of Walter Tegal, who own it in the name of somebody else, but you will not find the names of Standard Oil or Rockefeller. But the evidence is clear. The tracks are all around. Those are Rockefeller tracks all around the drug industry and they have it.

So, anytime a tax exempt foundation like the Rockefeller Foundation or the Carnegie Fund starts pumping money to a university, and they insist that that money be spent on drug research, the light goes on! Drug research, sure! Because out of that research comes new miracle drugs which they then can produce at great profit, and it was old John D. Rockefeller's idea that for every dollar given away in philanthropy you ought to be able to make at least a hundred back, otherwise don't give it. And this is how it works.

Ferdinand Lemberg, in his monstrous book called "The Rich and The Super Rich" has this to say on the subject. Now Mr. Lemberg and I disagree on almost everything but this one, he hit the nail on the head when he said, "Recipients of the money must be ideologically acceptable to the donors." There is a positive record showing that by these means purely corporate elements are able to influence research and many university policies, particularly in the selection of personnel. The foundations are staunch supporters of the physical sciences, the findings of which had many profit making applications in the corporate sphere, and indeed they do.

Now the mastermind behind this whole method of philanthropy was not really I. V. Lee, whom I mentioned a moment ago, but it was a man by the name of Fred Gates. He called himself the Reverend Fred Gates. He started the ministry but his forte was raising money, and he had done a very interesting service for George Pillsbury of the Pillsbury Flour fame.

Pillsbury had a reputation almost as bad as Rockefeller's, and Fred Gates went to him one day and said, "Pillsbury, if you give me some of your money, I will spend it in a way that you suddenly will become a great guy in the eyes of a lot of people." And out of that developed what Fred Gates called the Pillsbury Formula.

And it was simply this. He told Mr. Pillsbury, if you are going to build a hospital, don't just give all the money for a hospital, give half of it. "Matching funds." You put up half of it on the condition that the hospital raise the other half from the community, from the business leaders of the community. That way, he said, you still get the credit for it, because your name is still on it. You gave the biggest share but you only give half the money. You get the same value for only half the investment, not only that, you get hundreds, perhaps thousands of people scurrying around raising the other money in terms of $5.00, $10.00, $100 or a thousand dollars and everybody that is involved in the fund raising program now is committed to you. They identify with you psychologically. They are part of your team. And, think of all the good will you'll get that way. That was the Pillsbury Formula.

Old John D. Rockefeller was twisting his mustache as he watched that very carefully. He got hold of Fred Gates, and he brought him in and he picked his brain. Finally he decided to hire him and put him in charge of all the Rockefeller foundation ventures. Rockefeller himself wrote about Gates as follows, he said, "I realized I had met a commercial genius. I persuaded Mr. Gates to become a man of business which he did." One of the first foundations created by Fred Gates for John Rockefeller was called the General Education Forum.

Now the name would lead you to believe that this was concerned with upgrading

Kenapa kita harus makan Vitamin B-17?
Punca kanser adalah daripada kekurangan Vitamin B-17 didalam tubuh kita.

Kernel aprikot merupakan kumpulan nut dan seed (kekacang dan bijirin). Tidak ada bezanya dengan kumpulan kekacang dan bijirin yang lain. Apa yang membezakanya adalah kandungan hasiat didalamnya yang sangat luar biasa, terutama Apricot Organik . Dalam bahasa nutrient, Biji Apricot ini di sebut mengandungi Amygdalin, yang juga dikenali sebagai Vitamin B-17. B-17 ini dapat membantu membunuh sel-sel kanser dalam badan kita. Hasilnya dapat membebaskan diri kita dari serangan penyakit ganas ini (kanser).

Amygdalin (Vitamin B-17) dapat di perolehi didalam beratus-ratus jenis tumbuhan . Dalam diet pemakanan kita harus ada B-17, jika tiada B-17 dalam diet pemakanan, anda boleh di hidapi penyakit kanser. Selain dari Apricot Kernel, B-17 juga boleh di perolehi dari badam pahit (amygdalin mempunyai rasa pahit – badam manis tidak mengandungi B-17 ), epal pips, benih-benih anggur, sekuang, buah beri, ubi kayu, biji buah oren dan biji benih yang lain.

Terdapat banyak cara yang anda boleh gunakan untuk melawan kanser. Salah satunya ialah dengan cara membina sistem imun supaya ia menjadi sangat kuat dan dapat melindungi anda dari kanser. Satu lagi adalah menggunakan supplement yang mempunyai antioxidants yang dapat melawan carcinogens dalam badan anda. Bagaimanapun, B-17 menggunakan cara yang sangat unik yaitu secara langsung menyerang sel kanser (directly attacks cancer cells). Maka hasilnya jauh lebih baik dari cara yang telah di sebut di atas.

Kajian tentang Amygdalin yang pertama telah di keluarkan seratus tahun dahulu. Telah disenaraikan dalam kamus-kamus farmakologi sejak dahulu lagi merupakan bahan yang tidak mengandungi toksik. Walau bagaimanapun dalam sebatian B-17 terdapat satu unsur kimia yang dinamakan "Benzaldehyde" ia adalah lengai secara kimia dan tidak berbahaya untuk tisu hidup yang normal.

Pekara yang sama juga dapat kita lihat dalam garam biasa. Garam sebenarnya terdapat dua unsur kimia didalamnya tetapi tidak bertindak balas dalam badan manusia, bahkan sangat diperlukan dalam badan manusia. Dua unsur kimia yang ada dalam garam adalah natrium dan klorida, maka sebab itu garam dalam istilah kimia disebut Natrium Klorida. Sebenarnya dalam garam ada satu sebatian kimia yang berbahaya "klorin". Sudah tentu jika anda makan juga banyak garam pada satu masa anda akan sakit.

Pekara yang sama juga berlaku dalam apricot, Makan jangan berlebihan, ikut peraturan yang telah di berikan. Bagaimanapun, amygdalin adalah kurang toksik daripada garam, dan jauh lebih selamat dari gula yang anda makan setiap hari.

Kita sedia maklum bahawa badan kita sentiasa mencipta sel kanser setiap masa. Biasanya sistem imun dapat membunuh sel kanser tersebut. Bagaimanapun pada saat anda berada dalam keadaan "stress" atau tubuh badan anda berada dalam kondisi yang sangat lemah dan sering terdedah dalam persekitaran karsinogen. Keadaan ini akan membuat sel kanser menjadi sangat kuat sehingga tidak mampu untuk dimusnahkan oleh sistem imun.

B-17 dari Apricot seed akan bekerjasama dengan sistem imun dan membunuh sel-sel kanser secara langsung. Untuk pengetahuan anda pada Sel-sel kanser terdapat satu enzim yang dapat membuka "ikatan kimia" yang terpadu dalam B-17 Apricot Seed yaitu Benzaldehyde. Maka Benzaldehyde akan di bebaskan dari ikatan kimianya yang terdapat dalam B-17. Bila Benzaldehyde dibebaskan maka Benzaldehyde akan membunuh sel kanser. Secara lumrahnya sel yang sihat tidak terdapat enzim ini. Maka sebab itulah B-17 tidak akan bekerja pada sel yang sihat. B-17 hanya bertindak balas pada sel yang tidak normal dalam badan manusia termasuklah sel kanser, tumor, jerawat atau pun buasir.

Enzim yang terdapat dalam sel kenser dapat membuka kunci amygdalin maka terhasilah Benzaldehyde. Jika terdapat lebihan Benzaldehyde yang terhasil dari tindak balas metabolik badan yang berkanser dan Benzaldehyde tersebut memasuki aliran darah anda. Maka secara semulajadi akan dineutralkan oleh hati.

Hati (liver) berkerja dengan lebih kuat jika terdapat ada unsur toksin dalam badan anda. Sehingga anda dapat melihat kesan kerosakan hati akibat pembersihan toksin dalam badan. Tapi bukan kerosakan dari kanser. Maka jika tubuh kita terlalu banyak toksin dan tidak di keluarkan dari badan, besar kemungkinan kita bakal mengidap kanser hati pula.

Penyelidik-penyelidik di Imperial College London telah membuat ujikaji menggunakan Benzaldehyde untuk menghapuskan sel-sel kanser, hasil kajian, mereka mendapati Benzaldehyde atau apa-apa toksin yang berada di dalam darah dengan cepatnya dineutralkan oleh hati.

Amygdalin kadangkala dirujuk sebagai Vitamin B-17 dan ditemui dalam nitriloside kaya dengan buah buahan dan tumbuh-tumbuhan digunakan sebagai terapi utama, kecuali kepada mereka yang menjaga pemakanan yang baik, menjaga Ph tubuh dengan baik, tiada pencemaran toksin dalam badan. Vitamin B-17 telah digunakan untuk merawat penghidap-penghidap kanser dalam beberapa klinik di seluruh dunia.



Kernel aprikot merupakan kumpulan nut dan seed (kekacang dan bijirin). Tidak ada bezanya dengan kumpulan kekacang dan bijirin yang lain. Apa yang membezakanya adalah kandungan hasiat didalamnya yang sangat luar biasa, terutama Apricot Organik . Dalam bahasa nutrient, Biji Apricot ini di sebut mengandungi Amygdalin, yang juga dikenali sebagai Vitamin B-17. B-17 ini dapat membantu membunuh sel-sel kanser dalam badan kita. Hasilnya dapat membebaskan diri kita dari serangan penyakit ganas ini (kanser).

Amygdalin (Vitamin B-17) dapat di perolehi didalam beratus-ratus jenis tumbuhan . Dalam diet pemakanan kita harus ada B-17, jika tiada B-17 dalam diet pemakanan, anda boleh di hidapi penyakit kanser. Selain dari Apricot Kernel, B-17 juga boleh di perolehi dari badam pahit (amygdalin mempunyai rasa pahit – badam manis tidak mengandungi B-17 ), epal pips, benih-benih anggur, sekuang, buah beri, ubi kayu, biji buah oren dan biji benih yang lain.

Terdapat banyak cara yang anda boleh gunakan untuk melawan kanser. Salah satunya ialah dengan cara membina sistem imun supaya ia menjadi sangat kuat dan dapat melindungi anda dari kanser. Satu lagi adalah menggunakan supplement yang mempunyai antioxidants yang dapat melawan carcinogens dalam badan anda. Bagaimanapun, B-17 menggunakan cara yang sangat unik yaitu secara langsung menyerang sel kanser (directly attacks cancer cells). Maka hasilnya jauh lebih baik dari cara yang telah di sebut di atas.

Kajian tentang Amygdalin yang pertama telah di keluarkan seratus tahun dahulu. Telah disenaraikan dalam kamus-kamus farmakologi sejak dahulu lagi merupakan bahan yang tidak mengandungi toksik. Walau bagaimanapun dalam sebatian B-17 terdapat satu unsur kimia yang dinamakan "Benzaldehyde" ia adalah lengai secara kimia dan tidak berbahaya untuk tisu hidup yang normal.

Pekara yang sama juga dapat kita lihat dalam garam biasa. Garam sebenarnya terdapat dua unsur kimia didalamnya tetapi tidak bertindak balas dalam badan manusia, bahkan sangat diperlukan dalam badan manusia. Dua unsur kimia yang ada dalam garam adalah natrium dan klorida, maka sebab itu garam dalam istilah kimia disebut Natrium Klorida. Sebenarnya dalam garam ada satu sebatian kimia yang berbahaya "klorin". Sudah tentu jika anda makan juga banyak garam pada satu masa anda akan sakit.

Pekara yang sama juga berlaku dalam apricot, Makan jangan berlebihan, ikut peraturan yang telah di berikan. Bagaimanapun, amygdalin adalah kurang toksik daripada garam, dan jauh lebih selamat dari gula yang anda makan setiap hari.

Kita sedia maklum bahawa badan kita sentiasa mencipta sel kanser setiap masa. Biasanya sistem imun dapat membunuh sel kanser tersebut. Bagaimanapun pada saat anda berada dalam keadaan "stress" atau tubuh badan anda berada dalam kondisi yang sangat lemah dan sering terdedah dalam persekitaran karsinogen. Keadaan ini akan membuat sel kanser menjadi sangat kuat sehingga tidak mampu untuk dimusnahkan oleh sistem imun.

B-17 dari Apricot seed akan bekerjasama dengan sistem imun dan membunuh sel-sel kanser secara langsung. Untuk pengetahuan anda pada Sel-sel kanser terdapat satu enzim yang dapat membuka "ikatan kimia" yang terpadu dalam B-17 Apricot Seed yaitu Benzaldehyde. Maka Benzaldehyde akan di bebaskan dari ikatan kimianya yang terdapat dalam B-17. Bila Benzaldehyde dibebaskan maka Benzaldehyde akan membunuh sel kanser. Secara lumrahnya sel yang sihat tidak terdapat enzim ini. Maka sebab itulah B-17 tidak akan bekerja pada sel yang sihat. B-17 hanya bertindak balas pada sel yang tidak normal dalam badan manusia termasuklah sel kanser, tumor, jerawat atau pun buasir.

Enzim yang terdapat dalam sel kenser dapat membuka kunci amygdalin maka terhasilah Benzaldehyde. Jika terdapat lebihan Benzaldehyde yang terhasil dari tindak balas metabolik badan yang berkanser dan Benzaldehyde tersebut memasuki aliran darah anda. Maka secara semulajadi akan dineutralkan oleh hati.

Hati (liver) berkerja dengan lebih kuat jika terdapat ada unsur toksin dalam badan anda. Sehingga anda dapat melihat kesan kerosakan hati akibat pembersihan toksin dalam badan. Tapi bukan kerosakan dari kanser. Maka jika tubuh kita terlalu banyak toksin dan tidak di keluarkan dari badan, besar kemungkinan kita bakal mengidap kanser hati pula.

Penyelidik-penyelidik di Imperial College London telah membuat ujikaji menggunakan Benzaldehyde untuk menghapuskan sel-sel kanser, hasil kajian, mereka mendapati Benzaldehyde atau apa-apa toksin yang berada di dalam darah dengan cepatnya dineutralkan oleh hati.

Amygdalin kadangkala dirujuk sebagai Vitamin B-17 dan ditemui dalam nitriloside kaya dengan buah buahan dan tumbuh-tumbuhan digunakan sebagai terapi utama, kecuali kepada mereka yang menjaga pemakanan yang baik, menjaga Ph tubuh dengan baik, tiada pencemaran toksin dalam badan. Vitamin B-17 telah digunakan untuk merawat penghidap-penghidap kanser dalam beberapa klinik di seluruh dunia.

Vitamin B-17 'Anti-Cancer Properties?'
The Healing Daily talks about Vitamin B-17 and its anti cancer properties.

The diet of primitive man and most fruit-eating animals was very rich in nitrilosides. They regularly ate the seeds (and kernels) of all fruits, since these seeds are rich in protein, polyunsaturated fats, and other nutrients.

Seeds also contain as much as 2 per cent or more nitriloside. There are scores of other major foods naturally, or normally, very rich in nitriloside.

Vitamin B-17 (nitriloside, amygdaline) is a designation proposed to include a large group of water-soluble, essentially non-toxic, sugary, compounds found in over 800 plants, many of which are edible. These factors are collectively known as Beta-cyanophoric glycosides. They comprise molecules made of sugar, hydrogen cyanide, a benzene ring or an acetone. Though the intact molecule is for all practical purposes completely non-toxic, it may be hydrolyzed by Beta-glycosidase to a sugar, free hydrogen cyanide, benzaldehyde or acetone.

Apricot Kernels (Vitamin B17)

Apricot Kernels are the richest source of B17 (Laetrile). Ernst Krebs is the world's leading authority on the relationship between cancer and nitrilosides, and the inventor of laetrile.

Apricot kernels are known to prevent and cure cancer, even though the medical establishment has worked night and day and even lied to suppress it. Vitamin B17 is found in most all fruit seeds such as the apple, peach, cherry, orange, nectarine and apricot. It is found in some beans and many grasses such as wheat grass. The hard wooden pit in the middle of the peach is not supposed to be thrown away. In fact, the wooden shell is strong armor protecting one of the most important foods known to man, the seed.

It is one of the main courses of food in cultures such as the Navajo Indians, the Hunzas the Abkhasians and many more. Did you know that within these tribes there has never been a reported case of cancer? (And there are doctors and scientists from the U.S. living within these tribes right now studying this phenomena) We don't need to make the seed a main course but we do need the equivalent of about seven apricots seeds per day to improve our odd for a cancer-free life. Other foods that contain vitamin B-17 are: bitter almonds, millet, wheat grass, lima beans and more. (The bitter almond tree was banned from the U.S. in 1995.) The kernel or seed contains the highest amounts of vitamin B17.

One of the most common nitrilosides is amygdalin. This nitriloside occurs in the kernels of seeds of practically all fruits. The seeds of apples, apricots, cherries, peaches, plums, nectarines, and the like carry this factor; often in the extraordinary concentration of 2 to 3 per cent.

The rule of thumb when eating seeds is to eat the fruit along with the seeds. For example, you do not want to extract the seeds from 50 apples and eat only those seeds, however eating a few apples every day along with their seeds is perfectly safe.

Since the seeds of fruits are possibly edible, it may be proper to designate the non-toxic water soluble accessory food factor or nitriloside that they contain as vitamin B-17. The presence of nitriloside in the diet produces specific physiologic effects and leaves as metabolites specific chemical compounds of a physiologically active nature. The production by a non-toxic, water-soluble accessory food factor of specific physiological effects as well as identifiable metabolites suggests the vitamin nature of the compound.

Before considering the possible antineoplastic activity of this vitamin B-17, let us recall that the benzoic acid arising from it has certain antirheumatic and antiseptic properties. It was rather widely used (in Germany and elsewhere) for rheumatic disease therapy prior to the advent of the ortho-hydroxy addition product of benzoic acid known as ortho-hydroxybenzoic acid or salicylic acid. It was originally obtained from beech-wood bark.

Recall now, that thiocyanate also was once widely used, in both Germany and American medicine, as an effective agent for hypertension. Used as such, as the simple chemical, the dosage was difficult to control. Obviously, this difficulty does not arise from the thiocyanate usually produced in the body through metabolizing vitamin B-17 (nitriloside). However, chronic hypotension has been reported in Nigerians who eat quantities of the nitriloside-containing manioc (cassava)--especially that of the bitter variety.

Are we justified in suggesting that cancer itself might be another chronic metabolic disease that arises from a specific vitamin deficiency--a deficiency specifically in vitamin B-17 (nitriloside)?

There are many chronic or metabolic diseases that challenge medicine. Many of these diseases have already been conquered. What proved to be their solution? By solution we mean both prevention and cure. What really cures really prevents. Let us think of some of these diseases that have found total prevention and hence cure. We are speaking of metabolic or non-transmissible diseases. At one time the metabolic disease known as scurvy killed hundreds of thousands of people, sometimes entire populations. This disease found total prevention and cure in the ascorbic acid or vitamin C component of fruits and vegetables. Similarly, the once fatal diseases so aptly called pernicious anemia, pellagra, beri beri, countless neuropathies, and the like, found complete cure and prevention in specific dietary factors, that is, essential nutrients in an adequate diet.

No chronic or metabolic disease has ever found cure or prevention, that is, real cure and real prevention--except through factors essential to an adequate diet and/or normal to animal economy.

Does it seem likely, therefore, that cancer will be the first exception to this generalization that to date has not had a single known exception? In my humble opinion, certainly not. But does it follow from this that vitamin B-17 (nitriloside) is the specific antineoplastic vitamin? Logically, by itself, alone, this conclusion that nitriloside is the specific antineoplastic vitamin does not follow. However, examine the brilliant laboratory studies of Dr. Dean Burk of the Department of Cytochemistry of the National Cancer Institute in Washington. I believe that in light of the experimental evidence that he has produced, you might agree that vitamin B-17 (nitriloside) is indeed the antineoplastic vitamin and is certainly worth more investigation.