Showing posts with label Cancer Healings. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Cancer Healings. Show all posts

Bone Cancer

12:18:00 PM |



Bone cancer is caused by a problem with the cells that make bone. More than 2,000 people are diagnosed in the United States each year with a bone tumor. Bone tumors occur most commonly in children and adolescents and are less common in older adults. Cancer involving the bone in older adults is most commonly the result of metastatic spread from another tumor.
There are many different types of bone cancer. The most common primary bone tumors include osteosarcoma, Ewing’s sarcoma, chondrosarcoma, malignant fibrous histiocytoma, fibrosarcoma, and chordoma.
  • Osteosarcoma is the most common primary malignant bone cancer. It most commonly affects males between 10 and 25 years old but can less commonly affect older adults. It often occurs in the long bones of the arms and legs at areas of rapid growth around the knees and shoulders of children. This type of cancer is often very aggressive with risk of spread to the lungs. The five-year survival rate is about 65%.

  • Ewing’s Sarcoma is the most aggressive bone tumor and affects younger people between 4-15 years of age. It is more common in males and is very rare in people over 30 years of age. It most commonly occurs in the middle of the long bones of the arms and legs. The three-year survival rate is about 65%, but this rate is much lower if there has been spread to the lungs or other tissues of the body.

  • Chondrosarcoma is the second most common bone tumor and accounts for about 25% of all malignant bone tumors. These tumors arise from the cartilage cells and can either be very aggressive or relatively slow growing. Unlike many other bone tumors, chondrosarcoma is most common in people over 40 years of age. It is slightly more common in males and can potentially spread to the lungs and lymph nodes. Chondrosarcoma most commonly affects the bones of the pelvis and hips. The five-year survival for the aggressive form is about 30%, but the survival rate for slow-growing tumors is 90%.

  • Malignant fibrous histiocytoma (MFH) affects the soft tissues, including muscle, ligaments, tendons, and fat. It is the most common soft-tissue malignancy in later adult life, usually occurring in people 50-60 years of age. It most commonly affects the extremities and is about twice as common in males as females. MFH also has a wide range of severity. The overall five-year survival rate is about 35%-60%.

  • Fibrosarcoma is much more rare than the other bone tumors. It is most common in people 35-55 years of age. It most commonly affects the soft tissues of the leg behind the knee. It is slightly more common in males than females.

  • Chordoma is a very rare tumor with an average survival of about six years after diagnosis. It occurs in adults over 30 years of age and is about twice as common in males as females. It most commonly affects either the lower or upper end of the spinal column.
In addition to bone cancer, there are various types of benign bone tumors. These include osteoid osteoma,osteochondroma, enchondroma, chondromyxoid fibroma, aneurysmal bone cyst, unicameral bone cyst, and giant cell tumor (which has the potential to become malignant). As with other types of benign tumors, these are not cancerous.
There are two other relatively common types of cancer than develop in the bones: lymphoma and multiple myeloma. Lymphoma, a cancer arising from the cells of the immune system, usually begins in the lymph nodes but can begin in the bone. Multiple myeloma begins in the bones, but it is not usually considered a bone tumor because it is a tumor of the bone marrow cells and not of the bone cells.

Read More

World Without Cancer

11:52:00 AM |




In addition to the California Report, there have been numerous
other Laetrile studies by supposedly qualified and reputable
organizations. These include a 1953 project at Stanford University,
a 1961 study at the University of California-Berkeley, one in
1962 at the Diablo Labs in Berkeley, and a 1965 study on behalf of
the Canadian Medical Association at McGill University in Montreal.
Every one of these has been tarnished by the same kind of
scientific ineptitude, bias, and outright deception as found in the
1953 California Report. Some of these studies openly admitted
evidence of anti-cancer effect but hastened to attribute this effect
to other causes. Some were toxicity studies only, which means
they weren't trying to see if Laetrile was effective, but merely to
determine how much of it was required to kill the patient.
In most of these experiments, the only criterion used to
measure the success of Laetrile was reduction in tumor size. That
may sound reasonable at first, but one must realize that most
tumors are a mixture of malignant and benign cells and that the
transplanted tumors used on laboratory mice contain only about
ree or four percent outright cancer tissue. The more malignant
tissues are rejected by the healthy mouse and cannot be successfully
transplanted. Even if Laetrile eliminated one-hundred
percent of the cancer, these tumors would be reduced only three or four percent at the most. Life extension, not tumor size, is the
only meaningful test of therapeutic success.
In 1973, after months of extensive Laetrile studies on mice, the
Southern Research Institute in Birmingham, Alabama, released a
report of its findings to the National Cancer Institute. The NCI
then announced that these studies once again proved Laetrile had
no effect in the treatment of cancer. Upon further investigation,
however, all was not as it appeared. Digging into the raw data
contained in the report's tables and charts, Dr. Burk discovered
that there were three groups of mice in the experiment: (1) a large
group that received too little Laetrile, (2) another large group that
received too much, and (3) a small group that received an
optimum dose. Those that received too little died just as quickly
as those in the control group which received none at all. Those
that received too much died sooner than those in the control
group. But those that received the proper dosage survived
significantly longer than those that received none at all!
In view of these results, one may wonder how the National
Cancer Institute could have said that Laetrile was of no value.
Here is how it was done. All three groups were lumped into the
same statistics—including those which received too little and
those that received too much. When these large groups were
added to the small group that survived significantly longer, they
brought down the average to the point where they honestly could
say that these mice, as a total group), did not survive significantly
longer than those which had received no Laetrile at all. The
statistics didn't lie. But liars had used statistics.(1)
Meanwhile, the number of recovered cancer patients singing
the praise of Laetrile continued to grow. These patients and their
families established a national, grass-roots organization called
The Committee for Freedom-of-Choice in Cancer Therapy.
Several hundred chapters across the country held public meetings
and press conferences, and provided testimony before state
legislative committees calling for the legalization of Laetrile.
Somehow, these "laetrilists" had to be answered.
So, in 1978, the National Cancer Institute launched yet
another study to debunk the movement. Ninety-three cancer

cases were selected in which the medical records indicated that
Laetrile had been effective. The details were submitted to a panel
of twelve cancer specialists for evaluation. Cases involving traditional
therapy were also mixed in, and the panel was not
informed which cases received which treatment. Judgment would
be based only on results. NCI sifted through the Laetrile cases
and rejected most of them, so the panel was allowed to review
only twenty-two.
How does one evaluate the success of a cancer treatment? Is it
the length of life? The quality of life? The feeling of well-being
and absence of pain? The ability to function normally on a daily
basis? All of these are the criteria used by doctors who apply
nutritional therapy. They are not concerned with the size of a
tumor because, as stated previously, they know most tumors are a
mixture of malignant and benign cells, and that most tumors have
only a small percentage of cancer cells. If Laetrile succeeds in
removing 100% of a patient's cancer, his tumor may only decrease
by 5% or 10%. But who cares? The patient is back among the
living again. The tumor is not the disease; it is merely the
symptom of the disease.
Orthodox medicine, on the other hand, is totally focused on
the tumor. To most oncologists, the tumor is the cancer. If they
remove it surgically or burn it away, they happily announce to the
patient: "Good news. We got it all!" They may have all of the
tumor, but did they get what caused the tumor? And, in the
process, did they dislodge some of those malignant cells, causing
them to migrate through the circulatory system only to find new
homes elsewhere in the body? Is that the reason so many cancer
patients die of metastasized cancer to multiple locations only a
few months after hearing those ludicrous words: "We got it all"?
In any event, Laetrile practitioners have always warned that
reduction in tumor size is the least meaningful of all the measures
of success. So what was the primary criterion chosen by NCI?
Tumor size, of course. Not only was that consistent with the
orthodox view of cancer, but it also would skew the results in
favor of treatments, such as radiation and chemotherapy, which
have a more pronounced effect on tumor shrinkage than Laetrile.
A living and healthy patient with a tumor reduced by only 15%
would be classified as a failure. A sick and dying patient with a
tumor reduced 60% would be a success.
In spite of this stacked deck, here is what the panel found:
Among the Laetrile cases reviewed, 2 patients showed completeresponse (total tumor disappearance), 4 had partial regression
(greater than 50%), 9 were "stabilized" (tumors had stopped
growing), and 3 had "increased disease-free intervals." In other
words, 18 out of 22, or 82%, had some kind of beneficial response
—even when using tumor size as the criterion. There are very few
"approved" anti-cancer drugs that can show a report card as
good as that.
None of these encouraging numbers made any difference. The
official report of the NCI stated: "These results allow no definite
conclusions supporting the anti-cancer activity of Laetrile."(1) The
wording was brilliantly deceptive. No one was expecting "definite
conclusions" from a single study. But an honest and full
report of the results would have been quite nice, thank you.
Nevertheless, the carefully structured statement conveyed the
impression that Laetrile once again had failed a scientific test.
Words had been used, not to communicate, but to obfuscate.
The next act in this drama of pseudo science was a clinical
trial involving 178 patients at the Mayo Clinic. Amygdalin was to
be tested again, but this time it was to be combined with
"metabolic therapy" consisting of diet, enzymes, and nutritional
supplements—exactly what the nutritional doctors had been
advocating. The leading Laetrile practitioners, however, bitterly
objected that the protocol used was not comparable to theirs.
Furthermore, there was serious doubt about the purity of the
amygdalin being used. It was suspected that the entire experiment
was carefully crafted to fail. And fail, it did. The Mayo
doctors reported: "No substantive benefit was observed."
It is hard to beat this unbroken record of deception in the
cloak of science, but the granddaddy of them all occurred a few
years later at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in
Manhattan. For five years, between 1972 and 1977, Laetrile was
meticulously tested at Sloan-Kettering under the direction of Dr.
Kanematsu Sugiura. As the senior laboratory researcher there,
with over 60 years of experience, Dr. Sugiura had earned the
highest respect for his knowledge and integrity. In a science
laboratory, where truth is sought to the exclusion of all else, he
would have been the perfect man for this test. For the purposes of
Sloan-Kettering, however, he was the worst possible choice.

Sugiura broke his experiments down into a series of tests
using different types of laboratory animals and different tumors:
some transplanted and some naturally occurring. At the conclusion
of his experiment, he reported five results: (1) Laetrile
stopped metastasis (the spreading of cancer) in mice, (2) it
improved their general health, (3) it inhibited the growth of small
tumors, (4) it provided relief from pain, and (5) it acted as a
cancer prevention. The official report stated:
The results clearly show that Amygdalin significantly inhibits
the appearance of lung metastasis in mice bearing spontaneous
mammary tumors and increases significantly the inhibition of the
growth of the primary tumors.... Laetrile also seemed to prevent
slightly the appearance of new tumors.... The improvement of
health and appearance of the treated animals in comparison to
controls is always a common observation.... Dr. Sugiura has never
observed complete regression of these tumors in all his cosmic
experience with other chemotherapeutic agents.(1)
The reader is advised to go back and read that last section
again for, as we shall see, just a few months later, spokesmen for
Sloan-Kettering were flatly denying that there was any evidence
that Laetrile had any value.
To fully appreciate what happened next, a little background is
in order. The board of directors at Sloan-Kettering is virtually
controlled by corporate executives representing the financial
interests of pharmaceutical companies. Most of that control is
held by the Rockefeller dynasty and their cartel partners. At the
time of the Sugiura tests, there were three Rockefellers sitting on
the board (James, Laurance, and William) plus more than a dozen
men whose companies were within the Rockefeller financial
orbit.
The history of how the Rockefellers became involved in the
pharmaceutical industry is contained in Part Two of this book.
But, to appreciate how that effects this part of the story, we must
know that John D. Rockefeller, Sr., and his son, J.D., II, began
donating to Memorial Hospital in 1927. They also gave a full
block of land on which the new hospital was built in the 1930s.
Nothing was given without something to be received. In this case,
was control over one of the great medical centers of the world.
How that happened was described by Ralph Moss, former

Assistant Director of Public Affairs at Sloan-Kettering. Speaking
of the expansion of Sloan-Kettering after World War II, Moss
wrote:
The composition of the board of trustees at that time reveals a
kind of balance of power, with the Rockefellers and their allies in
overall control, but with those representing the Morgan interests
assuming many positions of power.... From this period forward the
world's largest private cancer center was ruled by what looks like a
consortium of Wall Street's top banks and corporations.
By the mid 1960s, the MSKCC board had begun to take on a
rather uniform appearance. What stood out was that many of its
leading members were individuals whose corporations stood to lose
or gain a great deal of money, depending on the outcome of the
"cancer war." (1)
With this background in mind, it should come as no surprise
to learn that Sugiura's findings did not please his employer. What
goes on inside the laboratories is generally of little interest to
board members. It is assumed that, whatever it is, it will result in
a new patented drug that will keep the cash flow moving in their
direction. They were slow to pick up on the implications of
Sugiura's work but, when they did, all hell broke lose in the
board room. If a cure for cancer were to be found in an extract
from the lowly apricot seed, it would be a terrible economic blow
to the cancer-drug industry.
Never before had Sugiura's work been questioned. In 1962,
more than 200 of his scientific papers were published in a fourvolume
set. The introduction was written by Dr. C. Chester Stock,
the man in charge of Sloan-Kettering's laboratory-testing division.
Dr. Stock wrote:
Few, if any, names in cancer research are as widely known as
Kanematsu Sugiura's.... Possibly the high regard in which his work
is held is best characterized by a comment made to me by a visiting
investigator in cancer research from Russia. He said, "When Dr.
Sugiura publishes, we know we don't have to repeat the study, for
we would obtain the same results he has reported."
All that was forgotten now that Sugiura's findings were
threatening the cash flow. The same Dr. Stock who wrote those
words was now a Sloan-Kettering vice-president and part of the
pack howling for a whole new series of tests. Sugiura had to be
proven wrong!



Read More

From the Book: Tumor Immunology

8:51:00 PM |



ANTIGEN PROCESSING AND
PRESENTATION
LAURENCE C. EISENLOHR AND JAY L. ROTHSTEIN
                             Thomas Jefferson University
In the ongoing search for effective and reliable immune-based approaches to cancer therapy,
much of the work is focused on T lymphocytes as effectors. CD8+ T lymphocytes (TCD8+)
are of particular interest as they combine specificity and lethality at a level that no current
chemotherapeutic or radiation regimen can match. One can only marvel at the effectiveness
with which these cells are able to clear an acute respiratory tract infection, leaving the involved
tissues intact—the precise goal of cancer therapy. CD4+ T lymphocytes (TCD4+), relatively
specific, but generally less cytotoxic than TCD8+, can also mediate potent anti-tumor effects in
certain settings. While a great deal has been learned about how TCD4+ and TCD8+ responses
are induced and sustained, further exploration will be necessary if the full potential of these
populations is to be harnessed. One aspect worthy of closer inspection is that of antigen
processing and presentation—the various intracellular steps that prepare antigen for T cell
recognition. It is intuitive that greater understanding and controlled manipulation of these
events, which usher in the adaptive response, could have profound influence on the final
character of the anti-tumor immunity that is engendered.
1. INTRODUCTION
This chapter will review fundamental aspects of antigen processing and presentation
with special emphasis on how they pertain to tumor-specific immunity. Three points
must be made at the outset. First, there is no intent to evaluate the relative efficacy of
various therapeutic strategies that have been based on principles of antigen processing
and presentation. Only a handful of possible permutations have been tested at this

point and, in any event, outcomes will certainly be different depending upon the
experimental model or clinical situation. Second, there is minimal segregation of
findings in animal models (usually mouse) and humans. Most of the fundamental cell
biology is similar even though decades of experimentation and practical application
have made it clear that success in mouse models does not ensure success in patients.
Finally, the topic of tumor antigen processing and presentation is now sufficiently
large that a comprehensive review in a single chapter is not possible. While an attempt
has been made to cover a large amount of conceptual territory, space does not allow
for all of the relevant work to be mentioned here.
2. THE BASIS FOR T CELL RECOGNITION: FRAGMENTS OF ANTIGEN
DISPLAYED AT THE CELL SURFACE BY SPECIALIZED “PRESENTING”
MOLECULES
2.1. Peptide Binding
While B cells and their antibody products recognize antigens in their native forms,
T cells respond to pieces of antigens held at the cell surface by various “presenting
molecules” and generated by a variety of intracellular, and even extracellular
processes known collectively as antigen processing. Class I molecules are made up
of a heavy chain encoded within the major histocompatibility complex (MHC)
and a noncovalently associated light chain, β2-microglobulin. Class I heterodimers
bind peptides that are generally 8–11 amino acids in length and present them to
TCD8+ whose most appreciated response is killing of the peptide-presenting cell.
Class II molecules, comprised of α and β chains, both encoded within the MHC,
generally bind peptides 11–17 amino acids in length, and present them to TCD4+
which respond by elaborating factors that guide and potentiate both B cell and
TCD8+ responses.1 The variation in lengths of peptide bound by class I and class II
molecules is due to distinct structural differences in the peptide-binding grooves (1).
The binding grooves of class I molecules are closed at both ends, with the consequence
that a peptide must be a specific length in order to be bound. In contrast,
class II binding grooves are open at both ends so that quite large peptides have the
capability of binding. Despite this, relatively short peptides are usually isolated from
class II molecules, presumably due to the exposure of any extended portions to
intracellular and extracellular proteases. As might be surmised from several different
crystal structures (2), peptides that directly interact with the binding groove of
both class I and class II molecules are resistant to proteolysis, as are the presenting
molecules themselves (3–7). Many readers may know that a key feature of class I and
II molecules is their tremendous polymorphism, with hundreds of versions of each
encoded by many different loci within the MHC existent in the human population.
Greatest variation is in the residues that line the peptide-binding grooves, leading
to distinct peptide-binding specificities and, thus, differences among individuals in
the parts of any antigen that are responded to. This variation is a powerful strategy
for a population to counteract the rapid replication and mutation rates that many

microbes are capable of, but constitutes a major impediment for tissue transplantation
and immune-based cancer therapy since both applications may require individuallytailored
therapies. The basis for binding specificity is a series of pockets in the floor
of any peptide-binding groove into which side chains of the peptide extend. Some
of these pockets provide anchoring points that are quite stringent in terms of the
side chains that are acceptable, while others are much more permissive. Thus, only
specific segments within a protein, with appropriate amino acids properly spaced
apart, are able to bind any particular MHC molecule. Those side chains that do
not participate in binding to the groove are available for interaction with the T cell
receptor. As mentioned at the outset, recognition of peptides by T cell receptors can
be highly specific and sensitive. Single amino acid changes in a peptide, including
residues that do not directly contact the T cell receptor and even simple phosphorylation
of a peptide, can profoundly influence T cell recognition (8–10). In terms
of sensitivity, relatively few copies of a particular peptide are required for full T cell
activation—on the order of tens to hundreds (11–13). This can be derived from an
amount of antigen that cannot be detected using standard biochemical methods (14).
Both specificity and sensitivity are highly variable among different T cell clones (15),
being determined by both intrinsic factors, such as receptor sequence and density,
and extrinsic factors such as the balance of stimulatory and suppressive cytokines.
These factors will obviously vary dependent upon the tissue(s) where the antigen is
expressed.
From the standpoint of peptide presentation, targets of T cell-mediated tumor
immunotherapy can be divided into three broad categories: foreign,mutated self, and
nonmutated self epitopes. Examples of the first category (foreign) are epitopes from
the growing number of viruses that establish persistent infections and induce transformation,
such as the papillomaviruses and herpesviruses.Within the second group
are the proteins altered by point mutations, deletions or chromosomal translocation,
which are incidentally or coincidentally connected with transformation. All of these
can result in new peptide sequences that have the ability to bind to an MHC class
I or class II molecule and potentially elicit a response. An emphasis must be placed
on the words can and potentially. Such mutations do not guarantee the generation of
a neo-epitope that can bind to an MHC molecule and binding does not guarantee
T cell stimulation. At least with respect to peptide binding, some level of prediction
is possible. Algorithms, based upon known epitopes, have been developed for many
mouse and human MHC molecules, such that one can query an open reading frame
for the presence of segments with a high likelihood of binding (16, 17). Nonmutated
peptides could be of potential interest if they are: 1) derived from antigens, such as
carcinoembryonic antigen, that are expressed at low levels or not at all in the adult,
but highly expressed in the cancerous cell, 2) expressed by a differentiated (specialized)
cell type, such as the melanocyte, that is expendable, 3) expressed by a fraction
of a particular cell type, expendable or not, such immunoglobulins, the product of
B cell lymphomas, that can provide unique T cell epitopes from the hypervariable
regions (18, 19), or 4) altered by cellular processes that have gone awry as a result of
transformation. An example of this would be phosphorylation due to aberrant kinase

activity, as recently suggested by the formation of antigens within papillary thyroid
carcinomas (20).



Read More

Tumor Immunology

8:43:00 PM | ,


Download this book free of charge (Tumor Immunology) click here to download.
Read More

Cancer 3

5:34:00 PM |


Examples of dishonesty and corruption in the
field of drug research; a close look at the first
major study which declared Laetrile (vitamin
B17) "of no value;" proof that the study was
fraudulent; the FDA's ruling against the use of
Laetrile because it had not been tested; and the
refusal then to allow anyone (except its
opponents) to test it.
This year 550,000 Americans will die from cancer. One out of
three of us will develop cancer in our lifetime. That is eighty-eight
million people in the United States alone.
The purpose of this study is to show that this great human
tragedy can be stopped now entirely on the basis of existing
scientific knowledge.
We will explore the theory that cancer, like scurvy or pellagra,
is a deficiency disease aggravated by the lack of an essential food
compound in modern man's diet, and that its ultimate control is
to be found simply in restoring this substance to our daily intake.
What you are about to read does not carry the approval of
organized medicine. The Food and Drug Administration, the
American Cancer Society, and the American Medical Association
have labelled it fraud and quackery. In fact, the FDA and other
agencies of government have used every means at their disposal
to prevent this story from being told. They have arrested citizens
for holding public meetings to tell others of their convictions on
this subject. They have confiscated films and books. They even
have prosecuted doctors who apply these theories in an effort to
save the lives of their own patients.
The attitude of Big Brother, expressed bluntly in 1971 by
Grant Leake, Chief of the fraud section of California's food anddrug bureau, is this: "We're going to protect them even if some of
them don't want to be protected.(1)
Early in 1974, the California medical board brought formal
charges against Stewart M. Jones, M.D., for using Laetrile in the
treatment of cancer patients. It was learned later, however, that
Dr. Julius Levine, one of the members of that board, himself had
been using Laetrile in the treatment of his own cancer. When Dr.
Jones' case came up for review, the political pressures were so
great that Dr. Levine felt compelled to resign from his post rather
than come out openly in support of Dr. Jones and his patients.(2)
This is happening in a land which boasts of freedom and
whose symbol is the Statue of Liberty. For the first time in our
history, people are being forced to flee from our shores as medical
emigrants seeking freedom-of-choice and sovereignty over their
own bodies. Laetrile has been available in Australia, Brazil,
Belgium, Costa Rica, England, Germany, Greece, India, Israel,
Italy, Japan, Lebanon, Mexico, Peru, the Philippines, Spain,
Switzerland, Russia, Venezuela, and Vietnam—but it is not
allowed in the "land of the free."
In spite of this, however, many doctors have defied the
bureaucracy and have proved in their own clinics that the
vitamin-deficiency concept of cancer is valid.
With billions of dollars spent each year in research, with
additional billions taken in from the cancer-related sale of drugs,
and with vote-hungry politicians promising ever-increasing
government programs, we find that, today, there are more people
making a living from cancer than dying from it. If the riddle were
to be solved by a simple vitamin, this gigantic commercial and
political industry could be wiped out overnight. The result is that
the science of cancer therapy is not nearly as complicated as the
politics of cancer therapy.
If there was any good that came from the Watergate scandals
of the Seventies, it was the public awakening to the reality that
government officials sometimes do not tell the truth. And when
caught in such "mendacities," they invariably claim that they lied
only to protect national security, public health, or some other
equally noble objective.
This Watergate syndrome is not new. Several years ago, an
FDA agent who had testified in court against a Kansas City
1. "Debate Over Laetrile," Time, April 12,1971, p. 20.
2. "Laetrile Tiff, State Medic Out," San Jose Mercury (Calif.), April 10,1974.
Read More

Cancer 2

5:30:00 PM |

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.

Read More

Introduction to Cancer

5:24:00 PM |


With billions of dollars spent each year on research,with other billions taken in on the sale of cancer-related drugs, and with fund-raising at an alltime high, there are now more people making a living from cancer than dying from it. If the solution should be found in a simple vitamin, this gigantic industry could be wiped out overnight. The result
is that the politics of cancer therapy is more complicated than the science.
WORLD WITHOUT CANCER blazes the trail into unexplored territory and reveals how science has been subverted to protect entrenched commercial interests.
It delivers the kind of impact that could topple an empire; and perhaps it will.
Read More