Cancer 2

The purpose of this article is to marshal the evidence that cancer is a nutritional-deficiency disease. It is not caused by a
bacterium, virus or mysterious toxin but by the absence of a
substance that modern man has removed from his diet. If that
analysis is correct, then the cure and prevention of cancer is
simple. All that needs to be done is to restore that easily obtained
and inexpensive food factor to our daily meals.
This is an exciting theory. It holds the promise for a world
without cancer now, not at some distant point in the future, and it
would mean that the billions of dollars spent each year on
research and medical treatment could be redirected to more
happy pursuits. Of course, it also would mean that the million-orso
professionals now gainfully employed in the cancer-research,
cancer-therapy, and fund-raising industries would rapidly be out
of work. This is where the plot becomes interesting, because these
are the same people to whom we have turned for expert opinion
regarding the validity of Laetrile, nutritional therapy.
It should not be surprising that these experts have rejected the
vitamin-deficiency concept of cancer. There is nothing in it for
them. Not only would a world without cancer lead to pay-check
shock, it also would represent a blow to professional prestige.
Imagine: a cure for cancer found in the seeds of fruits, not in
research laboratories, and discovered by people without government
grants or prestigious diplomas hanging on their walls!
Organized medicine has spoken. Laetrile is quackery, it says,
and is derided as an "unproven" cancer treatment. However, let
us take a closer look at that word. For most people, unproven
means simply that there is no proof. But what is proof? It is not an
absolute concept. In the strict sense, there is no such thing as
proof; there is only evidence. If evidence is convincing to the
observer, then it is said to be proof, and the thesis which it
supports is viewed as "proven." If a second observer finds the
same evidence to be unconvincing, then it is not proof, and the
thesis is "unproven" to that observer.