For example, roses cannot be patented. They grow naturally. Though citrus fruits cure scurvy, citrus fruits cannot be patented to create a monopoly. B17, likewise, cannot be patented because it grows naturally in the seeds of fruits and vegetables.
In 1953, only two men, Dr. E.M. McDonald [Left] (American Medical Association Committee Chairman) and Dr. Henry Garland [Right] (American Medical Association Committee Secretary), out of seven total in the AMA committee, published their suspiciously unsigned report of a State of California experiment on laetrile (the concentrated pill form of B17). Keep in mind, these two men did not personally do any experiments on, nor have any experience with, laetrile, they only reviewed documents from people that did.
(See "TREATMENT of cancer with laetriles; a report by the Cancer Commission of the California Medical Association", Calif Med, April, 1953; 78(4):320-6)
Garland and McDonald were also the same two men that coined a popular phrase back in the late 1950s: "A pack a day keeps lung cancer away," and "a harmless pastime up to twenty-four cigarettes per day." These phrases were in promotion of their false conclusions that smoking had no connection to lung cancer. Though not documented in this article, there has been much indication that these men were paid by tobacco companies at that time to give a false report due to the a large decrease in sales because of major public concern over lung cancer. Are we also to trust their conclusions on laetrile?
(See "Here’s Another View: Tobacco May be Harmless," U.S. News & World Report, Aug 2, 1957, p. 85-86)
Still today, we see the similar deception in the general "health" industry. Coca-Cola, for example, has recently been approved by the ADA (American Dietetic Association) to provide a program to educate dietitians about food saftey. (even though Coca-Cola products in general are terrible for your health and diet) They are teaching our nation's dietary practitioners that artificial coloring, non-nutritive sweeteners, and other chemicals (like fluoride) have been "carefully examined for their effects on children's health, growth, and development." They are suggesting that dietitians help get rid of "concern among parents about their children's health."
-Coca Cola: Beverage Institute for Health $ Wellness [www.beverageinstitute.org], "Children's Dietary Recommendations: When Urban Myths, Opinions, Parental Perceptions & Evidence Collide," retrieved July 16, 2011, [http://www.beverageinstitute.org/en_US/pages/webinar-childrensdietary-cpe.html]
However, according to the Alliance for Natural Health (a third party that does not have money ties to chemical companies):
"[Coca-Cola] Program materials include gems like ‘[a] majority of studies so far have not found a link between sugar and behavior in children generally or children diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.’ This is certainly news to us, since we have seen many studies that say the opposite."
-Alliance for Natural Health [www.anh-usa.org], "Dietitians Are Buying Coke's Line: Sugar, Fluoride, Artificial Colors are SAFE for Children!," June 14, 2011, retrieved July 16, 2011, [http://www.anh-usa.org/dietitians-are-buying-cokes-line/]
For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.
-1 Timothy 6:10
Coca-cola wants to rid the public of health fears about their product because they will lose money.-1 Timothy 6:10
Cigarette companies want to rid the public of health fears because they would lose money.
And pharmaceutical companies want to rid the public of fears concerning their products because they will lose money.
(Read "The United Vacci-nations" here at creationliberty.com for more details)
The 1953 California Medical Association report is the primary cited reference, and almost the entire extent of research, performed by most clinics and hospitals when looking at laetrile. Though these people have never had experience with laetrile, nor have even seen the results themselves, they, with a giant leap of faith in mankind, simply trust the "experts" to tell them what to do:
"Dr. Edwin Mirand of Roswell Memorial Hospital in Buffalo, N.Y. said: 'We've looked into it and found it has no value.' When asked if the renowned little hospital, which deals only with cancer, actually tested Laetrile, Dr. Mirand said, "No, we didn't feel it was necessary after others of good reputation had tested it and found had no effectiveness in the treatment of cancer.' He referred, as all authorities do, to the [1953] California Report."
-Tom Valentine, "Government is Suppressing Cancer Control," The National Tattler, March 11, 1973, p. 2
Another example:
"The cancer expert in question... told me that Laetrile was 'sugar pills.' Had he told me that he had used Laetrile experimentally on X number of patients and found it completely ineffective, I might have been impressed. But when I asked him whether he had ever used it himself, he said that he had not. When I asked him whether he had ever traveled abroad to study the experience with Laetrile therapy in Germany, Italy, Mexico, the Philippines, or other countries, he replied that he had not. And when I asked him if he had ever made a first-hand study of the pros and cons of the subject, again he conceded that he had not. He was simply repeating what he had heard from others who, in turn, were probably repeating what they had heard from others, going all the way back to the antiquated 1953 report of the California Cancer Commission."
-David Martin, Cancer News Journal, January/April, 1971, p. 22
In 1963, 10 years after the California report, the California State Department of Health adopted the 1953 California report as "true" and finally released all the original experiments to the public for the first time. After reviewing the original documents, they were found to contain positive feedback on the usefulness of laetrile, and showed that Garland and McDonald had purposefully lied about the results.
(See Dr. G. Schroetenboer & Dr. W. Wolman, "Report by Cancer Advisory Council on Treatment of Cancer with Beta-Cyanogenic Glucosides ("Laetriles")," California Department of Public Health, 1963, Appendix 4, p.1-2)
For example, Garland and McDonald stated clearly in their 1953 report, "No evidence of cytotoxic changes was observed by any of the consultants." (i.e. Latrile killing cancer cells.) Yet the released records of 1963 state that multiple cases showed positive change.
Dec 15, 1952:
"Case 1M... Hemorrhagic necrosis of tumor is extensive... An interpretation of chemotherapeutic effect might be entertained." (i.e. it's possible this has a healing effect, which means Garland and McDonald lied)
(See Dr. John W. Budd, "Report by Cancer Advisory Council on Treatment of Cancer with Beta-Cyanogenic Glucosides ("Laetriles")," California Department of Public Health, 1963, Appendix 3, p.1-2)
Sept 10, 1952:
"M-1... This might represent a chemical effect since the cells affected show coagulation necrosis and pyknosis."
"M-3... There appears to be more degeration in the tumor cells in the lymph node. I would consider this as a possible result of chemical agent."
"Two cases... Showed moderated changes... which might be considered as chemotherapeutic toxic cellular changes."
(See Dr. J. L. Zundell, "Report by Cancer Advisory Council on Treatment of Cancer with Beta-Cyanogenic Glucosides ("Laetriles")," California Department of Public Health, 1963, Appendix 3, p.1-2)
Garland and McDonald lied to cover up the findings. The only reason the results were not stronger was because the scientists at that time were carefully administering a substance they were not familiar with. They only used about 2% of what is needed to get optimum results. This Garland and McDonald report, though completely false and incomplete in experimentation, is still the primary source for laetrile research used by major medical facilaties today, but on page 3 of their report, they had to admit the facts:
"All of the physicians whose patients were reviewed spoke of increase in the sense of well-being and appetite, gain in weight, and decrease in pain..."
-Garland & McDonald report, quoted by John A. Richardson & Patricia Griffin, Laetrile Case Histories, published Bantam Books, 1977, p. 29, ISBN: 9780553114911
But in attempt to cover up these findings, they continued to say, "... as though these observations constituted evidence of definite therapeutic effect." Though it is not definite, those observations do constitute further experimentation to verify the results, but instead, McDonald and Garland lied, costing millions their lives over the past few decades.
No comments:
Post a Comment