Home | Introduction | Site Map | Success Stories | Research | Products | FAQ | Contact Us | WWC Audio |


 • Introduction
Important Warning  
About Vitamin B17
Vitamin B17 as Preventative
Metabolic Therapy in Cancer
 • B17 In Metabolic Therapy
Laetrile and Cyanide
Graphic on Action of B17
Frequently Asked Questions
B17 Therapy Components
Accessory Supplements
B17 Therapy Overview
Therapies and Protocols
What is in B17 Therapy?
Maintenance Dosages
Accessory Therapies
Positive Thinking
Implementing Changes
Behaviour of Tumours
Criteria For Evaluation
B17 - Sickle Cell Anaemia
Fluoridation-linked cancer
In God We Trust

•  More Studies, Research































































































By G. Edward Griffin

Areas of need for further research with vitamin B17; how the Laetrile controversy differs from medical controversies of the past; an analogy of biological and political cancer; and a scenario in which both will be conquered together.

Considering the lack of beneficial results obtained by orthodox medicine, it has been said that voodoo witchcraft would be just as effective—and perhaps even more so—for at least then the patient would be spared the deadly side effects of radiation and chemical poisoning. Just as we are amused today at the primitive medical practices of history, future generations surely will look back at our own era and cringe at the senseless cutting, burning, and poisoning that now passes for medical science.

The advocates of vitamin B17 are the first to admit that there is yet much to learn about the natural mechanisms involved in the cause and control of cancer and that there is need for continued caution and understatement. For one thing, there is a growing suspicion among experienced clinicians that B17 in foods is more effective than in the currently processed and concentrated forms. They would prefer their patients to obtain it in this natural state, except for the fact that it is next to impossible to ingest sufficient quantities that way to be therapeutically effective in the treatment of advanced cancer. When the patient needs massive doses quickly, the physician has only one recourse, and that is to administer B17 in the highly concentrated, purified, and injectable form. But in that form it is possible that other trace substances associated with B17 as it occurs in the natural state may have been eliminated—substances which either act directly against cancer themselves, or which may serve as catalysts causing either the B17 to function more efficiently or stimulating still other mechanisms of the body into action. Many nutritionists believe that organic vitamins obtained from real foods are superior to man-made or synthetic vitamins because of the trace substances found in one but not in the other. So, too, there is a growing respect for B17 in the natural state.1 At any rate, even though the basic truths have been unlocked, there is still much to learn, and Laetrile advocates humbly admit the need for additional research.

1. If recent FDA rulings are allowed to stand, it will be illegal to claim or even imply that vitamin supplements derived from organic sources are superior to those that are synthesized. They will even forbid the manufacturer to identify the source on the label. Thus, truth in packaging is declared illegal by the FDA!

There have been many other medical controversies centered around cancer therapy. Perhaps the best publicized of these was Dr. Andrew Ivy’s chemical formula known as Krebiozen and the Hoxsey Treatment developed in the 1920s by Harry Hoxsey. The Laetrile controversy is different from these, however, in that the formula has not been kept a secret. Its chemical composition and its action have been openly described and willingly shared with all who express an interest. There are no enforceable patents on its manufacture and, consequently, no profits to its discoverer. Dr. Krebs had no proprietary interest in Laetrile, never received payment for the formula, and never refused to share his technical knowledge with anyone who desired to manufacture it. His standard reply to all such inquiries was: "Laetrile is the property of all mankind."

A significant aspect of the Laetrile controversy, therefore, is that the proponents have nothing to gain, while the detractors have much to lose. Admittedly, as long as Laetrile is forced by the FDA into a black-market operation, those who manufacture and distribute it can be expected to derive substantial profits. These profits, however, merely will reflect the necessary and fair price paid by those who are not willing to run the risk of imprisonment to those who are. When public opinion forces the legalization of Laetrile, the price will plummet. After that, there will be a transition period of a few years in which vitamin B17 will be manufactured in various concentrated forms in order to treat existing cancer victims. This, too, will be a source of income, but, in the absence of government restrictions favoring any single manufacturer, others will be attracted into the field and the resulting competition will bring the cost of injectable B17 even lower—perhaps to less than one-tenth of present levels. The cost of low dosage tablets for routine, daily use probably will drop to about the same as that of any other vitamin.

The most encouraging part of all, however, is that, even if government were to succeed in totally stopping the supply of Laetrile, we still could obtain all the vitamin B17 we need to maintain normal health, and we could do so quite legally by selecting the appropriate food. It is abundant in the seeds of apricots, peaches, plums, nectarines, cherries, berries, and apples. It is found in lima beans, bean sprouts, millet, and many other foods. It may take a little effort to obtain it, but no government action—short of imprisonment itself—can stop us from doing so.

Once the story of vitamin B17 is widely known, once nitriloside-bearing seeds are ground up and sprinkled over our foods as a routine seasoning, the battle against cancer finally will be won. In the wake of that battle, unfortunately, there will be many casualties: men and women who learned the truth too late. Some, mercifully, may be brought back from the edge of the grave for an uncertain time, but they will bear the disfiguring scars of their wounds from surgery and radiation. They may be relieved from pain, but no amount of B17 can repair their bodies or return them to total health. Others more fortunate, who are treated sooner and who escape the damage of orthodox therapy, will return to a normal and productive life, fulfilling their expected years. In all such cases, however, maintenance doses will be required to prevent the body’s metabolic barrier from breaking once again at the weak spot of its old rupture.

In time, the generation so affected will die off, and, with it, the last vestiges of the twentieth century’s greatest medical catastrophe will disappear into the history books.

But what of the other cancer—the malignancy that is now spreading through the body-politic and destroying its substance —what of that? Are we to save our health only so that we and our children can become more productive serfs?

There are many parallels that can be drawn between cancer and totalitarianism. Government, for example, is much the same as trophoblast. Like its counterpart in our bodies, government is both normal and necessary. No civilization could come to birth without it. It is a vital part of the life cycle.

Government, however, just like the trophoblast, must be held in check to prevent it from growing, feeding upon, and ultimately destroying its host—the civilization itself. Every dead civilization of the past either has been killed quickly by physical trauma—the military force of invading conquerors—or has died the slow death of cancer as the internal trophoblast of government grew to monstrous proportions and gradually consumed all there was. In the end, the civilization and the cancerous government were buried together in a common grave.

In biological terms, the trophoblast cell is held in check by the intrinsic action of the pancreatic enzymes and by the extrinsic action of vitamin B17. If either is deficient, the body is in danger. If both are weak, the trophoblast will grow and tragedy is certain. In terms of society, government is held in check by the intrinsic action of constitutional safeguards such as the division of political powers and other built-in checks and balances. It is restrained also by the extrinsic action of public awareness and vigilance over elected officials. If either is deficient, the civilization is in danger. If both are weak, government will grow and the civilization will die.

The analogy is devastating. It is obvious that both our intrinsic and extrinsic defenses are in bad repair, if functioning at all. Supreme Court decisions have toppled the constitutional restraints against federal centralism, and the public now appears to be mesmerized by the dazzling crystal pendant of collectivism swinging from the fingers of Big Brother. And the totalitarian trophoblast is running wild.

Can our civilization be saved? Or has the cancer progressed too far? That is the urgent question asked by every cancer victim. And the answer is the same: "We won’t know until we try"

In all honesty, the prospects do not look good. The disease is far advanced and, as of right now, there is little chance of an immediate halt to the process. Our only course of attack is to begin to build up the natural defenses as rapidly as possible, particularly the extrinsic factor of public awareness and vigilance over elected officials. The intrinsic task of rebuilding constitutional safeguards will take a little longer but will follow as consequence of our efforts in the primary field.

What we must do, therefore, is to manufacture the vitamin of an aroused public opinion and inject it as rapidly and in as large doses as possible into the body-politic. The heaviest doses should be injected directly into the tumor itself. Let the federal government—particularly the FDA—feel the powerful surge of this substance. It will be like selective poison to the malignant cell.

Specifically, the FDA must be cut back to size. There is no logic in granting our servant government the power to tell us what medicines or foods we may use. The only legitimate function of government in this field is to police labeling and packaging to insure that the public is correctly informed on what it buys. If the substance is dangerous, then it should be labeled as such but not withheld. In other words, give the people the facts and let them decide for themselves. Ninety percent of the present function of the FDA should be abolished!

After the tumor has begun to wither at the primary site of the FDA, our vitamin of public opinion then must be injected into the bloodstream of Congress and allowed to circulate freely into every other agency and bureau of government as well. All of them are just as riddled with the growing malignancy of despotism as is the FDA, and each of them needs to be brought back under control.

With sufficient effort and sacrifice, the patient can be saved. Whether or not our freedoms can be fully restored is another matter. They probably cannot. The cancer of collectivism already is too far advanced, and the damage is too great to permit it. Our people have lost the spirit of independence and self-discipline that are prerequisites for full recovery. They have grown soft and dependent upon government subsidies, welfare payments, health care, retirement benefits, unemployment compensation, food stamps, tax-supported loans, price-supports, minimum-wage laws, government schools, public transportation, and federal housing. Realistically, it is too much to expect that they will voluntarily give up any of these even if they know that, in the long run, it would be better for the system and for them. They still will not do it.

Conditions in America today were clearly seen almost two hundred years ago by the French philosopher, de Tocqueville. Viewing the seeds of centralism sown into our infant government even then, de Tocqueville predicted that the proud and defiant American would, in time, come to view government intervention in his daily life, not as acts of "despotism" which would drive him to another rebellion, but as "benefits" bestowed by a kind and paternalistic state. Describing the effect of such a system upon any people who embrace it, he wrote:

The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent and guided. Men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.1
1. Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, Vol. II (New York: Alfred Knopf, 1945), p. 291.

With the reading of these lines from out of the past, one is forcibly reminded of the words of Fred Gates, the original genius behind Rockefeller’s tax-exempt foundations: "In our dreams we have limitless resources, and the people yield themselves with perfect docility to our molding hands."

The cancer of collectivism can be halted, but the damage it has already done cannot be repaired. Our civilization can be restored to a high degree of political health and vigor. Nevertheless, we will have to live with our wounds and our scars.

But that is not so bad as it may seem at first. Like any cancer patient, we come eventually to the realization that it could be a lot worse. Instead of bemoaning the fact that we may never regain the vigor of our past, we can rejoice over the opportunity just to retain life. Considering the alternative of a lifeless existence in the dull, collective monotone of Orwell’s 1984, we should thank God for this opportunity to salvage as much of our freedoms as we still have. Instead of giving up in despair and surrendering our bodies and our minds to the ravages of a progressive and painful end, we should leap at the chance—any chance—to isolate the tumor of totalitarianism and rebuild what we can of our natural defenses against its spread. Any other course is unconscionable and stupid.

Let us, therefore, get down to specifics. All the rhetoric in the world is useless unless it is coupled with a tangible and realistic plan of action. Let us close this study by outlining at least the main features of that plan.

As mentioned previously, the FDA should be knocked down to size. Perhaps it should be abolished altogether. If its function were merely to guarantee honest labeling and packaging, there is no reason why some other agency such as that in charge of standards, weights, and measures couldn’t handle the job.

Would this result in a new wave of drug tragedies, another crop of thalidomide babies? Of course not. Let us suppose that the FDA had only the power to require the label and literature of thalidomide to state that "this drug is dangerous for use by women during periods of potential pregnancy and may result in deformed infants." Thalidomide is available only through the prescription of a licensed physician. No physician would prescribe such a drug without first considering this warning, and it is likely that he would not prescribe it to any woman of child-bearing age. But the decision would be his based upon full knowledge of the facts, which is the way it should be. Thalidomide received a great deal of publicity, but it is no different than hundreds of other drugs that may now be obtained through prescription. If one is banned, they all should be banned. The FDA, however, does not need the power to ban these drugs in order to protect our health. Honest labeling is adequate.

Nicholas von Hoffman, commentator for the Washington Post, confirmed this point when he wrote:

It would be very hard to show that the FDA’s power to ban or regulate the sale of a compound has worked to protect the public. Even in a celebrated case like thalidomide, what was important was warning pregnant women they’d jeopardize their babies if they took it. The power to insist on proper labeling so doctor and patients are adequately warned about the properties of drugs is what’s decisive. But the power to forbid something’s use, to stop research, why should the government have such power? To protect us? But we’re not wards of the state, we’re citizens.1
1. "And if it Works The Washington Post, June 4, 1971.  

Nor is Mr. von Hoffman alone. Writing in Newsweek, Milton Friedman says:

The 1962 amendments to the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act should be repealed. They are doing vastly more harm than good. To comply with them, FDA officials must condemn innocent people to death. In the present climate of opinion, this conclusion will seem shocking to most of you—better to attack motherhood or even apple pie. Shocking it is—but that does not keep it from also being correct. Indeed, further studies may well justify the even more shocking conclusion that the FDA itself should be abolished.2  
2. "Frustrating Drug Advancement," Newsweek, Jan. 8; 1973, p. 49.

Abolish the FDA? But who would enforce standards of sanitation in preparation of food and drugs?

Since when do free men need government to tell them how to be clean? To start off, the FDA’s performance in that field has been far from a paragon of excellence. But more important, any manufacturer in his right mind would naturally seek the highest possible sanitation standards if for no other reason than to avoid lawsuits from customers. One can be sure also that inspectors from companies that underwrite the manufacturer’s product liability insurance have more than a casual interest in their client’s sanitation record. Since violation of the underwriter’s standards can result in higher premiums or in cancellation of the insurance, the manufacturer would be a fool to ignore them. At any rate, local health agencies are more than adequate for the job of maintaining sanitation standards. Federal inspectors are no more proficient than state, county, or city inspectors, and there is no need for such wasteful duplication.

Contamination and adulteration of food-and-drug products undoubtedly would occur from time to time. But they also occur under the present system of FDA guardianship. The truth is that the FDA serves no reasonable or necessary function in this field and should be withdrawn from it completely.

It is time to stop this nonsense about humbly petitioning the FDA to grant us permission to test Laetrile, to sell apricot kernels, to take high-potency vitamins, or to do any of a hundred other specific things which it prohibits. Asking the FDA to approve these is like asking the wolf to okay the lunch in Little Red Riding Hood’s basket. It is time we realize that the FDA has no business in this field at all. We must stop asking meekly for permission and close the outfit down!

How is this to be accomplished? Returning again to the trophoblast analogy, our first task is to manufacture and inject the extrinsic factor which is the vitamin of public opinion. The intrinsic factor will be the re-building of legislative, judicial, and constitutional safeguards. Within this category, our most immediate work is in the courts. We must provide legal defense for those physicians and distributors who have the courage to risk their reputations and their livelihoods (to say nothing of a jail sentence) by standing against the bureaucracy. Of necessity, however, the legal battles fought on their behalf initially must be on narrow grounds and defensive in nature. The primary thrust of most of these cases will be merely to prove that the use of vitamin B17 does not in fact violate the law.

The objective here is not to change the law, (for laws are not changed in court) but merely to keep the defendant out of jail. Even if these cases are successful, however, they do not really solve the problem, for the FDA is still fully operable and free to rewrite its rulings, to tighten them up so as to override the court’s decision. Sooner or later, the doctor or the distributor will be under arrest again.

Ultimately, the law must be changed. At the very least, that means legislation specifically aimed at removing the FDA from jurisdiction over vitamins. Another approach might be a lawsuit on behalf of cancer victims challenging the constitutionality of the infringement upon their rights. Both lines of attack should be launched.

The final contest, however, will be fought on the larger battleground of whether the government should have any power over our food, medicine, or health. It will be only around this question that the many issues will lose their fuzzy edges and a chance for a real victory will become possible.

In order to abolish the FDA, or at least to restrict its operation, we will need either legislation or a constitutional amendment. We should pursue both.

The possibility of a constitutional revision is not as extreme as it may sound. In fact, Dr. Benjamin Rush of Philadelphia—one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, a member of the Continental Congress, Surgeon-General of Washington’s armies, and probably the foremost American physician of his day—had urged his colleagues to include "medical liberty" in the First Amendment at the time it was drafted. He wrote:

Unless we put medical freedom into the Constitution, the time will come when medicine will organize into an undercover dictatorship.... To restrict the art of healing to one class of men and deny equal privileges to others will constitute the Bastille of medical science. All such laws are un-American and despotic… and have no place in a republic.... The Constitution of this Republic should make special provision for medical freedom as well as religious freedom.1
1. As quoted by Bealle, The New Drug Story, op. cit., p. 188, and by Dr. Dean Burk in The Cancer News Journal. May/June, 1973. p. 4.  
There are more human beings alive right now than the sum total of all those born from the beginning of time to the beginning of this century. If we fail to heed Dr. Rush’s advice; if we fail to realize that medical freedom is just as important as the other freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights; then, before this century is over, more human beings will have died of cancer than the total of all men who have ever lived on this earth prior to that time. And this will happen in a century during which the solution was known and written in the scientific record.

In the days ahead, the controversy over medical freedom will intensify. Let it come. The reputations of honest men will be tarnished by the medical establishment and the media, and respectable business ventures will be ruined. So be it. Innocent men will be tried before corrupt or intimidated judges and thrown into prison. It is maddening but it cannot be helped, for the battle is not of our choosing. Our only alternatives are to resist or not to resist—to fight back with all we have or to surrender and perish. Yes, the battle is grim, but the stakes are high. We must not be intimidated by the strength of the opposition and, above all, we must not fail. Someone has to stand up against the bureaucracy. And we are the ones who must do it!

You and your family now may become secure from the threat of cancer. But that is only because someone else has taken the time to bring these facts to your attention. Can you do less for others?

Join with us in this gigantic undertaking. Make this your personal crusade. Dedicate yourself to freedom of choice, not just in cancer therapy, but in all spheres of human activity. Once the government is off our backs, then all things become possible. The biological and political trophoblasts will be conquered together and man, at last, will inherit the bountiful world of health and freedom that is his birthright—a world without cancer.
























































































2018 worldwithoutcancer.uk
By Accessing this web site you accept  all its terms and conditions.

©Copyright 2018 - worldwithoutcancer.uk - | Supportors of Arts for Cancer 2017/8- UK
Home | Introduction | Site Map | Success Stories | Research | Products | FAQ | Contact Us | WWC Audio |