Laetrile is Toxic, Right? Wrong. It is Non Toxic

Introducing Dr. Philip E. Binzel Jnr. M.D.

Administrative Hearings

Enter: Dr. Harold Manner

Dr. Binzel’s Results: Outstanding!

Sacked for Telling the Truth

See How They Lie, See How They Lie

Laetrile (Nitriloside) Bibliography

Enter: Dr. Ralph Moss

A Right of Reply

Professional Evaluation of the 1980’s Mayo Clinic…


Dr. Ralph Moss quotes…

Survival Rates

Some Not So Nice Happenings

Mr. Nesi’s Cry

8y.o Joey Hofbauer

Nearer Home, The Boomsma Story, QLD

Coercive Medicine

Germany 2004. An Amputation Thwarted.

Credibility? What Credibility?

Government Reform and Oversight Committee

The Results are IN!

Side Effects – Laetrile vs. Chemotherapy

If You Have Cancer


The Stupid Ban on Apricot Kernels







The World Health Organisation (W.H.O.) recently issued a major report in which it states that cancer rates could increase by 50% by the year 2020. This will mean that approximately 3 out of 4 people will succumb to cancer. This report is one of the most comprehensive global examinations of the disease to date. It provides clear evidence that "healthy lifestyles and public health action by governments and health practitioners could stem this trend, and prevent as many as one third of cancers worldwide" by timely action on smoking, diet and infection. For example:-

"Reduction of tobacco consumption.

A healthy lifestyle can help. Regular physical activity and frequent consumption of fruits and vegetables can make a difference."

See Dr. Ralph Moss’ weekly Newsletter No. 79, dated 04/09/03. If you wish to receive these free reports go to

There is no known cure for cancer. However, Vitamin B17 Metabolic Therapy (Amygdalin/Laetrile/Vit.B17) is a non-toxic successful treatment for many cancers, that has been available (and used) for at least the past 55 years. Today it is available in England, Italy, France, Germany, Russia, Israel, The Caribbean, Philippines, Mexico etc. But not in Australia!! I will tell you why.

Below I will give you ample, irrefutable evidence, where you can verify this for yourself, that Vit.B17 Metabolic Therapy is indeed a non-toxic successful treatment for cancer, and, in many cases, has succeeded where cancer sufferers have been declared terminal by doctors using the orthodox treatments of chemotherapy/radiation/surgery. Results obtained by doctors using Laetrile are far in excess of any obtained by orthodox treatments.

The drug cartel is not seeking a cure. It is treating the symptoms and not the cause. It is doing today exactly what Germany did in WW2 and that is to inject extremely toxic drugs into humans in experiments it hopes will kill cancer cells. That is all. The enforcers today are led by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and also the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) in the U.S. In Australia their minions are the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) in Canberra and in Queensland The Department of Health. All of them are ruled by the Drug Cartel.

The NCI, FDA, TGA and Qld. Health are well aware of the success of Laetrile as

I will prove, but mention Vit.B17, apricot seed, Laetrile or Amygdalin and they go beserk. They go to any lengths including lies, hiding the truth, carrying out experiments that give them the results they want, jailing people, confiscating stocks and forcing doctors to come to heel or go overseas. They even control our government to such an extent that we are denied our God-given right of informed consent to have alternative treatments for cancer. Therefore, if your child suffers from cancer they will take you to court as unfit parents and take your child away from you if you opt for treatment with Vitamin B17. If you try to seek alternative treatment overseas such as amygdalin/laetrile/Vit.B17 they will see that your passport is confiscated. (Case details later)

An 11 page CONSULTANT’S REPORT, prepared by Arthur C. Brown on "Alternative Cancer Treatments and Therapies,2001-2004" is available at:,the final paragraph of which states: "We strongly believe the alarming rise in cancer today requires all treatment options be explored and made available to citizens and doctors alike . The right to FREEDOM OF CHOICE in medical matters for doctors and patients is as important as any freedom in our constitution. Certain states in the USA (Georgia,Nevada, Arizona,Alaska etc. ) are now taking action independent of the Federal Government to allow medical doctors freedom to use alternatine treatments." Would the Australian and Queensland Governments please note, together with the enforcers the TGA and Q’ld Health ? You have no right to play God. Taking our freedom of choice away from us is dictatorial and a breach of the U.N.’s charter of human rights. You should be taken to the Serious Crimes Unit of the U.N.and so charged.

They will spread rumours that apricots kernels have killed people. They will do anything to ensure that the drug companies multibillion dollar a year industry remains untouchable. Your child must suffer the horrors of chemotherapy! The enforcers have spoken.

The result of all this is that we are being left to die needlessly, sick as dogs from the results of chemotherapy and in some cases wanting to die just so long as the experiments with toxic drugs cease.

An example; Details of a Mr. Nesi’s cry were featured as an Op-Ed in the New York Times and was described by Dr. Moss as "…one of the most devastating Op-Ed pieces on cancer that I have ever read. It was called ‘False Hope In A Bottle’…Somewhere in the computer data base, says Mr. Nesi, Susan’s (his wife) experimental regimen will be counted a success. She was a ‘responder’. And therein lies the terrible truth behind the approval of ‘miracle drugs’ on the basis of ‘tumor shrinkage’ or ‘extended days’. Susan’s life was extended. But at what cost? …I still hear my wife’s surgeon after her disastrous third surgery. ‘We have saved your wife’s life…We have given you the ability to spend more quality time with your loved one’ and the words she scribbled on a note pad two weeks later; ‘depressed more…please’" (See hppt:// ) or Dr. Moss’ site above.

Because of the above, this web site is dedicated in particular to all those WW2 vets who, through the grace of God, were lucky enough to survive a war, but who were discarded by their "We Will Look After You if You Don’t Have Cancer" Government at the time they most needed help, and allowed to die unnecessarily when a proven successful treatment was available. This statement in no way diminishes a dedication to all vets from all wars, service personnel generally, babies, young children, fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters who also have been left to die unnecessarily.

As stated by G. Edward Griffin, founder of the Cancer Cure Foundation, "There is a word for this. It is genocide." It is fitting that Dr. M. Rath has charged the drug cartel and the US government with murder, genocide and crimes against humanity, and taken them to the International Criminal Court at The Hague. The initial hearing took place on the 14th and 15th June 2003. Full details of the hearing are at I am of the opinion that our government should also be before the I.C.C.


My name is Noel Gomersall I live in Maryborough Qld. I am an ex-RAAF WW2 vet. with a Gold Card. I am just one of the many 80 y.o. plus vets. with, in my case, cancer of the prostate. I refused chemo/radiation/surgery and was put on a watchful waiting basis which means go home and enjoy yourself until the cancer gets too bad and then we'll see what treatment there is. As we can’t use our Gold Card to get alternative treatment, the idiotic situation is that we can get free medical care for cancer provided it is a treatment that, in the end, will most certainly kill us, but have to pay for a treatment that will very likely kill the cancer and let us live. Similarly, the general population too cannot come under the umbrella of the NHS. E-mail address –


What follows is the truth and nothing but the truth. According to Arthur Schopendauer (1788-1860) "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self evident."

There are examples in the past which support that statement. In 1860 Dr. Semmelweis insisted that all doctors wash their hands before delivering babies. Doing so eliminated "child bed fever". He was removed from the hospital staff and ostracized by the medical community. About the time he died in 1865 Dr. Lister discovered bacteria and proved Dr. Semmelweis correct. How many babies suffered or died unnecessarily?

In 1925 Dr. Fleming cured pneumonia by giving his patients mouldy bread. The mould of course was a fungus subsequently named penicillin 15 years later, by which time thousands of patients had died of pneumonia unnecessarily.

Acupuncture was derided as ‘quackupuncture’ for decades. Today it is accepted and used for, among other things, pain and nausea related to cancer. How many suffered unnecessarily?

In 1535 scurvy killed 25 of his 110 crew when French explorer Jacques Cartier and his expedition were frozen in ice at the St. Lawrence river mouth. The rest were due to follow. A friendly native American supplied them with a mixture made from the needles and bark of the while pine which is rich in Vitamin C. A dramatic recovery ensued. On his return to France the medical mandarins were amused by ‘the witch-doctor cures of ignorant savages’. 260 years later after the British Navy alone had lost 1 million men to scurvy unnecessarily, the practice of carrying oranges, lemons and limes on board ship led to the ‘limeys’ ruling the waves. Scurvy was cured by Vitamin C.

Also, pellagra has been cured by Vitamin B3, night blindness by Vitamin A, Rickets by Vitamin D, Beri Beri by Vitamin B1 and pernicious anaemia by Vitamin B12.

These diseases no longer exist provided you eat the proper food. How many have suffered and/or died unnecessarily from these diseases? The whole point of all of the above is that all of these remedies worked and that is the bottom line. And so it is with Vitamin B17 Metabolic Therapy as a successful treatment for cancer and the ingesting of foods containing Vit.B17 (nitrilosides) as a preventative.

(See Angelo’s web site at

At this point let me quote Dr. Ernest Krebs Jnr. who isolated Vit. B17 (Laetrile) from apricot kernels. The quotations are from a 1974 speech presented before the Second Annual Cancer Convention at the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles, USA…" is as true today as it was eleven years ago that Laetrile, Vit.B17 is the first and last final hope in the prophylacsis in therapy of cancer in man and animals. The reason for this is that Laetrile is a vitamin…the 17th of the B vitamins. We hear a great deal about its use in terminal cancer but the time to start with Vit.B17 is now before the disease becomes clinical… The simple source for your Vit.B17 is the seeds of the common fruit. …apricot and peach seeds contain almost 2% of Vit. B17 by weight. The apple seed….is equally rich in Vit. B17 – so are the seeds of prunes, plums, cherries and nectarines. The only common fruits ...that lack nitrilosidic seeds are the citrus fruits. Two more rich sources of Vit. B17 are …cereal millet and buckwheat. Macadamia nuts …are very rich in Vit. B17 and so are bamboo shoots, mung beans, lima beans, butter beans and certain strains of garden peas…

Let me give you a categorical or axiomatic truth to take with you – one that is totally uncontradictable, scientifically, historically and in every other way. This is, that no chronic or metabolic disease in the history of medicines has ever been prevented or cured except by factors normal to the diet, or normal to the animal economy. There have been many erstwhile fatal and devastating diseases that now have become unknown. They have been prevented and cured by ingesting the dietary factors and thereby preventing the deficiencies which accounted for those diseases." (examples given above)

See Phillip Day’s book "Cancer, Why We’re Still Dying To Know The Truth" which in my opinion is a must read for all cancer sufferers. It is available from Credence Publications, P.O. Box 791, Benalla. Vic. 3672. Ph. (03) 57621299.

Introducing Dr. Philip E. Binzel Jnr. M.D.

  1. v. The State Of Ohio Medical Board

The following are extracts from Dr. Binzel’s book "Alive and Well", published by American Media, P.O. Box 4646, Westlake Village, California.

Lies and Harrassment

Dr. Binzel checked with several attorney friends to verify that there was no law in the State of Ohio which would prevent him from using Laetrile. They all reported there was no law. Being a cautious man he then rang the Ohio State Medical Association for confirmation. ( 1974.)

"Our conversation went something like this.

‘I would like to know the present legal status of Laetrile in Ohio’.

‘Laetrile is illegal’, I was told.

‘If Laetrile is illegal, there must be some statute which says it is illegal. Would you please give me that statute number so that my attorney can look it up for me.’

‘Laetrile is illegal’, I was told again.

‘Yes, I understand that, but what is the statute number that makes illegal?’

‘Laetrile is illegal,’ I was told for the third time.

‘You have told me that three times now, but you have not given me the precise law that makes it illegal.’

‘Well, it is not approved by the FDA,’ was the reply this time.

‘Does that make it illegal?’


‘Why, then, did you tell me three times that it was illegal?’

‘Because that was what I was told to say if anyone inquired about Laetrile,’ was her reply.

Then, in the fall of 1976, "…I received a letter from the Medical Board of the State of Ohio requiring me to appear,two weeks hence, before that Board for a hearing – because I was using Laetrile." Dr. Binzel contacted the Committee for Freedom of Choice who suggested he contact attorney Mr. George Kell. At the hearing Attorney Kell told the members of the Board " If you decide to take this matter to court, you will have me to deal with." As stated by Dr. Binzel, "…As things turned out, it became obvious that the Medical Board of the State of Ohio did not wish to deal with Mr. George Kell."

Several months went by and then "…An enforcement Officer of the Board, as he called himself, appeared in my office without an appointment…and wanted to know if I was still using Laetrile. I assured him that I was. He told me that …"the Medical Board wanted to take away his medical license." I told him I knew that…that they would have to go through the courts. I told him I would insist on a jury trial and that I would parade before the jury all of the patients who had written letters to the Medical Board." The enforcer backed down…and said " I just want you to know that the State Medical Board is not happy with what you are doing." Dr. Binzel replied:

" I was not placed on this earth to please the State Medical Board . I was placed on this earth to please God.I know that the nutritional program I am using adds far more to the quality and quantity of life of the cancer patient than anything offered by orthodox medicine. Therefore, I am obligated to God to do what I know to be right. Whether the State Medical Board agrees or disagrees is not important It is important only that I do what pleases God, because, at my death, I will be judged by God and not by the State Medical Board. " Would the FDA, NCI, TGA, Qld. Health, the Aust.Govt. the Medical Board and the Drug Cartel please note.!

That was the last he heard from that Medical Board for 14 years until 1990. Ask yourself why the Board wouldn’t support a successful treatment!!

What happened in 1990 is given in detail in Chapter 10 , "Re-Enter the State Medical Board " Dr. Binzel writes in a humorous style and the episode covers 7 pages, too long to precis. It’s good reading. The good Dr. prevailed, but it clearly allows the reader to gauge the depth of harrassment the Medical Board went to "…because it didn’t want any trouble with the FDA. The harrassment was because of Laetrile and Dr. Binzel’s successes using it. " Details of his successes are given later. For those on the net, the whole book can be read at

Highly recommended.

( 2) v. The FDA


In 1977 the FDA filed suit in the Federal Court to prohibit the importation of Laetrile into the U.S. because it was toxic.

Now just let us pause for a second. From the first time Vit B17 was used successfully in 1845 (derived from the bitter almond seed and called Amygdalin ) at the Imperial College in Moscow, and reported to be non toxic, until about 1974, Laetrile/Amygdalin/Vit B17 was regarded as the non-toxic answer to cancer. Approx. 70,000 people in America had been treated with Laetrile in the 1970’s but I can’t find any record of them dying like flies as the Drug Cartel , FDA etc. would have us believe.Strange, isn’t it!

To continue: Mr. Robert Bradford, the head of the organisation "The Committee for Freedom of Choice in Cancer Therapy " contacted an eminent toxicologist , Dr. Bruce Halstead, who volunteered to testify against the FDA, but needed a practising physician who had used Laetrile.Early in December 1977 Mr. Bradford contacted Dr. Binzel who agreed to testify. The hearing was in Oklahoma City in the Court of Judge Luther Bohanon "…in about ten days time." Their attorney was Mr. Ken Coe.

(Note: The FDA had contacted the mother of a young girl in New York who, some months before, "…had gotten hold of a bottle of Laetrile pills belonging to her father and had taken an unknown quantity of these.She was taken to hospital and a number of blood tests were done over the next two days.The girl exhibited no symptoms but, for whatever reason, on the third day the doctors decided to give her the antidote to cyanide. The girl died the following day. "

The mother refused to testify for the FDA about the toxicity of Laetrile but, instead said " she would testify against the FDA.." Unfortunately, when she was flying to Oklahoma city a passenger on her aircraft had a heart attack, and the plane turned back to New York.It is strange how the truth will out! She did not swallow the Laetrile. See below re Dr.Harold Manner and the truth that eventuated concerning the child’s unfortunate death. )

Back to the case: Mr. Coe decided in the circumstances that "We’ll go with what we’ve got. " Dr. Binzel: I testified first… I stated that I had used Laetrile both by mouth and by intravenous injection on several hundred patients and that I had not experienced any toxic reaction in any of those patients…" Dr. Halstead then took the stand…Under direct Questioning from Mr. Coe Dr. Halstead explained how all substances known to man can be toxic. He showed that while oxygen is necessary to maintain life, too much oxygen can be fatal. He went through the same procedure with water, salt and other substances. He then showed that aspirin, sugar and salt were, milligram for milligram, more toxic than Laetrile. He further pointed out that chemotherapeutic agents which are commonly used in the treatment for cancer are, milligram for milligram, HUNDREDS OF TIMES MORE TOXIC THAN LAETRILE"

The FDA’s attorney then cross examined Dr. Halstead and on three separate occasions asked him to give the toxicity figures for three stated substances. In each instance Dr. Halstead pointed to a book on his lap and, without opening it, stated the page number, the table number and the toxicity number of the three substances concerned. Dr. Binzel: " The three FDA attorneys stared at each other for a minute, then one of them said ‘ How do you know all of this? ‘ Dr. Halstead calmly replied Because I wrote the book ‘ ‘Impossible’ yelled the attorney. Without a word Dr. Halstead took the book from his lap and handed it to Judge Bohanon. The Judge opened the book to its first page and read the following-" Textbook of toxicology written by Dr. Bruce Halstead , AS COMMISSIONED BY THE FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION OF THE UNITED STATES " The Judge said to the FDA attorneys " You fellows should have known that. You didn’t do your homework very well".When the defense had concluded its testimony, the Judge turned to the FDA’s attorneys and said " The court is now prepared to hear your witnesses and view your evidence. " One FDA attorney replied- "Your Honour, we don’t have any " Dr. Binzel records that the ensuing dialogue went like this :

Judge- " You are telling me that you have filed suit in this court that Laetrile is toxic, and you don’t have a single witness or shred of evidence to support such a suit?" Attorney: "That is correct ,Your Honor." Judge: "Then why have you filed such a suit?"

Attorney: "Because, Your Honor, Laetrile may be dangerous."

Judge: "Dangerous to whom/"

Attorney: "Dangerous to the Federal Government, Your Honor."

Judge: "How could Laetrile possibly be dangerous to the Federal Government?"

Attorney: "Because, Your Honor, the Government may lose control."

Dr. Binzel: " With this the Judge, now obviously angered, slammed down his gavel and said "CASE DISMISSED." I would mention at this point that, Toxologically.Amygdalin falls between Class 1 and Class2 (US Reg. Of Toxic Effects Chem. Subs. 1976) which means that it is virtually non-toxic. This compares with saccharin, between Class 3 and Class 4, and most "chemotherapy": Class 6_Super Toxic!!!

Let me now give you an example of the lengths to which the FDA goes to hide the truth. Despite the fact that the case had only just finished in the courtroom, the FDA had already anticipated the result and decided to tell the big lie. To again quote Dr. Binzel : " As Mr. Coe, Dr. Halstead,Bob Bradford,Betty and I left the court house, we saw a Six-foot by four foot poster on the wall in the lobby. It read in large letters " BEWARE OF LAETRILE! IT IS TOXIC! " At the bottom IN SMALL PRINT, WAS THE STATEMENT, "MUST BE POSTED IN ALL GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS BY ORDER OF THE FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION OF THE UNITED STATES." Is it possible that the FDA was lying to the people?" I suspect that the good doctor was having a little dig at the FDA with that last Question He was being far too polite. The NCI, FDA.,TGA and Q"LD HEALTH all take the view that if a lie is told often enough it will be believed.


A notice appeared in a Federal Register , documented in 1977, stating that there were going to be Administrative Hearings on Laetrile in Kansas City , Missouri on May second and third. Anyone who wished to speak for or against Laetrile was to write to the given address and ask for time to present testimony. Dr. Binzel wrote and requested 15 minutes, feeling that he had a moral obligation to do so as by this time "I had three years of experience using Laetrile…."

In brief the trial arose because a Mr. Glen L. Rutherford of Oklahoma had, in early 1977, decided to go to Mexico for treatment of his cancer with a nutritional programme including Laetrile. A few weeks later when he returned to the U.S. his Laetrile was confiscated at the border by Government order. He then filed suit in the Federal Court against the Secretary of Health and the Commissioner of the FDA for his right to use Laetrile. The trial went for several weeks, Federal Judge Luther Bohanon presiding. Dr. Binzel: "Each day the FDA attorneys would tell the Court that the FDA had hundreds and hundreds of studies that proved Laetrile would not work. Towards the end of the Trial Judge Bohanon said to the attorneys, "Tomorrow, when you come to Court, I want you to bring with you all of those studies that have been done by the FDA on Laetrile."

The following morning …."The judge asked for the studies. TheFDA attorney said, "Your Honor, we did not bring the studies because they are so scientific that we don’t think you can understand them."—Wrong thing to say!—

"The Judge was displeased. He insisted that all of the studies must be in his court room the following morning.

Next morning, no studies. When the Judge asked why, the FDA attorneys said …" the studies were so voluminous they were not sure that all of the studies would fit in the court room." The judge then stated that if necessary he would empty the entire court house, but he wanted all of those studies the following morning.

Next morning, no studies.Again the Judge asked why. The FDA attorney said, very simply, " Because, Your Honor, there are no studies."

Judge Bohanon was not happy, he was irate. The FDA attorneys explained that each evening after the trial they would call Washington. Each evening the Washington office of the FDA would assure the attorneys that they had all of the studies. When the attorneys finally pinned down the Washington tax office, they said they had no studies at all on Laetrile.

Judge Bohanon then called for the Administrative Hearings mentioned.

An interesting question here is: Were the FDA attorneys telling lies - or had the FDA done its homework and found that Laetrile was as effective as the doctors using it claimed it to be ? As Dr. Binzel says.." There was no way the FDA was going to admit this. For fifteen years they had been saying Laetrile was of no value. To come out now and say that they had been wrong was unthinkable…..Congress, rapidly, would have been forced to do away with the FDA…It was far less dangerous to go through with the Administrative Hearings than to admit that they were wrong."

At those Administrative Hearings "…..a doctor from the FDA testified that if you open a vial of Laetrile, it must be done in a large room with all of the windows open and that every one in the room must wear a gas mask. Otherwise, he said, everyone would die from the cyanide fumes from that vial of Laetrile.." That bloke was unlucky in that he had testified shortly before Dr. Binzel whose testimony was:

"… that I had opened some four thousand vials of Laetrile. I stated that I had opened them in a small room with all of the windows closed and that neither I, nor any of my staff, had worn a gas mask. I assured the Administrative Judge that I, and all of my staff, were alive and quite well…"

To me this looks like perjury. However, let us be kind and say that yet again the FDA had lied. Their track record at doing so is unequalled.. But would they try to bribe a Judge? Again, Judge for yourself.Dr. Binzel again: " The Administrative Judge was sitting to my right and behind me. I could not see him while I was testifying. According to those in the audience who could see him, he obviously became quite angry and turned very red in the face.He had allowed some of those testifying for the FDA to run overtime with their testimony. Just as soon as my time was up , he banged his gavel and said sternly, ‘ Your time is up! ‘ I assured him that I would be finished in less than a minute. Down came the gavel again, and again he said angrily, ‘Your time is up! ‘ I had a typewritten copy of my full testimony, which I gave to the recording secretary. All of my testimony did appear in the full record."

One wonders why an "impartial " Judge would allow FDA witnesses to run overtime,but cut short the testimony of a pro – Laetrile practioner. And why was he so upset and red in the face? In any event Dr. Binzel ensured that all of his testimony appeared in the full record: " The full testimony of everyone who took the stand at this Administrative Hearing was sent to Judge Bohanon. On 5 December 1977 he rendered his final decision in the case of Rutherford v.s. United States of America………….." Parts of the Judge’s decision follow:

The action of the Commissioner of Food and Drugs dated July 29,1977 is declared unlawful and such action, findings and conclusions are hereby vacated, set aside and held for naught

The Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare and his subordinates in the Food and Drug Administration are hereby permanently enjoined and restrained from interfering, directly or indirectly, or acting in concert with United States Customs Service or others , with the importation, introduction,or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce by any person of Laetrile / Amygdalin ….

The Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare and his subordinates in the Food and Drug Administration are hereby permanently enjoined and restrained from interfering with the use of Laetrile ( Amygdalin ) for the care or treatment of cancer by a person who is , or believes he is, suffering from the disease.

The Secretary of Health Education and Welfare and his subordinates in the Food and Drug Administration are hereby enjoined and restrained from interfering with any licensed medical practitioner in administering Laetrile ( Amygdalin ) in the care or treatment of his cancer patients. "

Above I stated that the FDA would go to any lengths to kill off Laetrile’s success. . Judge Bohanon’s December 1977 decision was taken from court to court. Many courts upheld his decision, some did not. His decision….was finally overturned in February 1989, over 12 years later.

Now please tell me why the government of Australia follows the lies of the FDA. It reminds me of a baby elephant holding the tail of its mother, blindly following her and not giving a damn where she goes.

Above I mentioned the doctor who testified that opening a vial of Laetrile released cyanide.Dr. Binzel was at pains to correct this doctor’s "misconception " as he called it (? Perjury }. He states: " There is no free cyanide in Laetrile. As pointed out in chapter two, when Laetrile comes into contact with the enzyme Beta-glucosidase, the Laetrile is broken down to form two molecules of glucose, one molecule of benzaldehyde and one molecule of hydrogen cyanide [HCN]. Within the body, the cancer cell, and only the cancer cell- contains that enzyme. The key word here is that the HCN must be formed. It is not floating around in the Laetrile….It must be manufactured. ..If there are no cancer cells in the body there is no beta-glucosidase. If there is no beta-glucosidase no HCN will be formed…. Laetrile does contain the cyanide radical CN…The cyanide radical CN and the hydrogen cyanide HCN are two completely different compounds just as pure sodium{Na}- one of the most toxic substances known to mankind- and sodium chloride{ NaCL] ,which is table salt, are two completely different compounds.

If the above is true, how did the story ever get started that Laetrile contained "free " cyanide? Guess! It was the Food and Drug Administration "

It is worth mentioning at this point that there are about 1500 foods and plants that contain Vit.B17. They are known as "nitrilosides " and are part of our diet.The FDA had issued a press release saying that they had extensively tested Laetrile and found no evidence that it contained hydrogen cyanide and that therefore Laetrile was of no value. {Chapter 6 of the book.}. The FDA does dig a deep hole for itself. First, no HCN therefore laetrile was useless, Second, they later had to admit that the HCN was formed, so they claimed that Laetrile was toxic, third, court hearings where they couldn’t produce any evidence that it was They stated they had none. With Dr. Manner’s findings of non-toxicity they changed the word " toxic " to " unsafe substance. " And the Australian Government believes what they say!!

During 1975 to 1980 Dr. Binzel was asked to participate in an NCI study to show the difference between patients treated with orthodox therapy{ surgery,radiation, chemotherapy} and those with nutritional therapy.

What follows is a lulu!

He went to New York to talk with one of the doctors whom he called Dr. Enseeyi {of the NCI } and ascertained that " The NCI would take a group of cancer patients and treat them in the orthodox method. Those of us who were using nutritional therapy would take a similar group and treat them by our method. The NCI would then compare the results. "The following dialogue then ensued in Q.andA. form:

"What will the NCI use as a criteria for success or failure in these treatments" I asked

"Tumor size " Dr.Enseeyi replied

I said "Let me make sure I understand what you are saying. Suppose you have a patient with a given tumor. Let’s suppose that this patient is treated by one of these two methods. Let’s say that the tumor is greatly reduced in size in the next three months, but the patient dies. How will the NCI classify that? "

"The NCI will classify that as a success "

"Why? " I asked.

" Because the tumor got smaller, " he replied.

I then asked " Suppose you have a similar patient with a similar tumor who was treated with a different method. Suppose that after two years this patient is alive and well, but the tumor is no smaller. How will the NCI classify this?"

" They will classify that as a failure."

" Why/ " I asked

" Because the tumor did not get any smaller," he said. Dr. Enseeyi went on to say, " In this study the NCI will not be interested in whether the patient lives or dies. They will be interested only whether the tumor gets bigger or smaller. "

I chose NOT to participate in this Study. "

There are two things we can learn from this. 1. You can’t trust the NCI. 2. The NCI,s statistics are terribly flawed when patients that die are recorded statistically as a success because chemo. reduced the size of the tumor. But, our Government and the other enforcers seem quite happy to accept NCI’s statistics! In actual fact, the NCI itself has been issuing "erroneous statistics " in that it has asserted for years that cancer incidence in the US is on the decline

In March, 1998 the NCI and the American Cancer Society { ACS }together with the Centres For Disease Control and Prevention{ CDC } united to issue an unprecedented joint statement , the so-called " Cancer Report Card. " It stated :: " Cancer incidence and death rates for all cancers combined and for most of the top 10 cancer sites declined between 1990 and 1995 , reversing an almost 20 - year trend of increasing cancer cases and deaths in the United States. Full details are in The Moss Reports Newsletter # 59 10/30/02 at The claim was even taken by some as a refutation of the claims of alternative medicine.

Oh,dear! Red faces all round.. The reversal of the " erroneous statistics " didn’t come from the medical fringe. As Dr. Moss reports, " It appears in a recent issue of the Journal of the NCI itself, written by scientists at the NCI’s own Biometry Research Group. It is a reversal with important political implications for the struggling ‘ war on cancer. ‘" Sharon Begly of the Wall Street Journal called the revised NCI estimates ‘a dispiriting picture of the nation’s progress in fighting cancer. ‘

Briefly, the following cancers had been claimed by the NCI to be stable or reducing but were in fact increasing:

Breast Cancer { stable } rising by "a substantial 0.6% per year."

Lung Cancer {women stable } rising by 1.2% per year

Melanoma in white men { steady } increasing by " a formidable 4.1% per year.

Prostate {falling } "rising by 2.2%per year. For white men , 1998 prostate cancer rates are actually 12% higher than originally reported ‘ while " for black men they are 14% higher "

Colon and Rectal cancer in white women has been ‘"rising at 2.8% annually since 1996 rather than, as originally calculated, less than 1% per year."

The errors were the result of " delays and errors in reporting " according to the NCI

Well, pigs might fly too. And our Government Oh, never mind.

Strangely? {my query } Dr. Moss reports that " two weeks after the study was published in the JNCI, I can still find no mention of it at the NCI’S website….I find it galling that…..the corrective dose of realism has gone unmentioned " nothing, either, in the websites of Reuters, ABC News, the N.Y.Times or even which monitors 4000 separate news sources.

Why do I get the feeling that ‘the powers that be’ like it that way? " Perhaps our Government would care to explain why? No? Other enforcers? Now, who in their right mind could trust the NCI, FDA. TGA or Qld. Health regarding any "successful statistical data? "

Below I will give you the results of a 5-year research study on Laetrile by Dr. Kanematsu Sugiura at Sloan_Kettering. I mention it here because Dr. Binzel covers it briefly in his book at Chapter 7 with the following comment:

"….Dr. Sugiura found that, when he used Laetrile on these mice, seventy seven percent of them did not develop a spread of their disease ( metastatic carcinoma ). He repeated this study over and over for two years. The results were always the same.Dr. Sugiura took his findings to his superiors at Sloan Kettering, but his study was never published. Instead, Sloan Kettering published the results of someone else who claimed that he had used Dr. Sugiura’s protocol This " someone else’ " study showed there were no beneficial results from the use of Laetrile. Dr. Sugiura complained. He was fired. A book was written about all of this titled " The Anatomy of A Cover-up " This book has all the results of Dr. Sugiura’s work. These results do, indeed, show the benefit of Laetrile. Dr. Sugiura stated in his book, It is still my belief that Amygdalin cures Metastases." Amygdalin is, of course, the scientific name for Laetrile.

A few months later, a cancer researcher at Mayo Clinic, in a private, informal conversation with a friend of mine, stated that it was very unlikely that any positive effects from the use of Laetrile would ever be published because " the powers above us want it that way "

To Dr. Binzel again. Also during 1975-1980, leaving no stone unturned, the FDA sent speakers througout the USA to talk about the "evils " of Laetrile.One of Dr. Binzel’s sons, Rick, was at Macalister College where one such speaker was scheduled to appear on campus of the college in St. Paul Minnisota in the spring of 1978. He states " Rick was very knowledgeable on the subject of Laetrile. "

Rick rang his brother Bill at the Uni. of Winsconsin in La Crosse. Dr. Binzel: " Bill was equally knowledgeable about Laetrile. " Rick also recruited Michelle Kleinrichard ( his future wife ) " who knows as much about the subject as the two of them "

Enjoy the following from Dr. Binzel’s book. I did!

The three of them went to the speech, but they did not sit together. Bill sat near the center just beyond half-way back in the auditorium. Rick sat toward the front on the right. Michelle sat toward the front on the left.

According to all three of them, the speaker left much to be desired. It was easy to see he had been given the speech to read, and that he had only a superficial knowledge of the subject. At the end of the speech he asked for questions. The first one on his feet was Bill (in the center). What happened was as follows:

Bill: "You said that you knew of a patient who had cancer and was treated with Laetrile. You said that the patient died, and this proved that Laetrile was worthless. Hubert Humphrey had cancer and was treated with chemotherapy. He died three months ago. Doesn't that prove that chemotherapy is worthless too? But, that's not my question. You also said that a little girl in New York took five Laetrile pills and died from cyanide poisoning. The parents now state that she took only one Laetrile pill. She was fine for three days. Then the doctors started treating her for cyanide poisoning. The next day she died. How do you explain this?"

Speaker: "I have no explanation for this."

Bill: "Another question."

Speaker: "No, we'll go to someone else."

With this, the speaker turned to another nice looking young man on his left. This other nice looking young man was Rick. (I have to say they were "nice looking" because I'm their father.) Rick pointed out that the speaker had stated that work done by Dr. Harold Manner, using Laetrile alone, had shown no positive results on cancerous mice. This, the speaker had said, was considered to be of great scientific value. Subsequent work done by Dr. Manner using Laetrile in combination with pancreatic enzymes and Vitamin A had shown excellent results. Yet, the speaker had indicated that these latter results were of no scientific value. Rick's question was why were these latter results ignored. The speaker could not answer that question.

The speaker then turned to his right. There, standing and smiling at him, was a pretty young lady. The speaker must have thought, "At last, a friendly face." The young lady was Michelle. Michelle was a member of the debate team at Macalester. The speaker was badly out-classed. She hit him with both barrels. She asked for a full explanation of why, if so many people die from chemotherapy, is chemotherapy so good? Why, if Laetrile makes people feel better, is Laetrile so bad? She asked who determined that Dr. Manner's recent results were not scientific. The poor speaker was in trouble. He hemmed and hawed, but never answered her questions. Finally, he said, "The question and answer period is over." He turned and rapidly left the stage. In five minutes Bill, Rick and Michelle had completely destroyed the credibility of the forty-five minute speech."


( I have an audio cassette of the following interview:)

They lied again and to prove it here is Dr. Harold Manner’s own story in a Q.and A. format to AcresUSA on 8/8/1978’ Full details are at ( at the website mentioned above where "Alive and Well " can be read in full..

Phillip Day’s book also records some of Dr. Manner’s writings, extracted from the latter’s book " Metabolic Therapy in Cancer " ( Cytopharma de Mexico, S.A. , P.O.Box 434931, San Ysio, CA92143 USA, Tel: +(52) 66804371 ) Phillip

Day’s book also records that " after harrassment over his decision to treat patients with Laetrile, …he moved to Tijuana, Mexico, where he ran The Manner Clinic, successfully treating thousands of U.S. cancer patients from 1984 until his death in 1992. "

In his book Dr. Manner stated :" …The frequent recurrence of a malignancy after treatment with conventional methods of surgery, radiation and/or chemetherapy results because the basic underlying cause of the cancer is rarely considered and consequently remains uncorrected.

The underlying cause is regarded as the underlying nutritional problem, which is treated with B17 Metabolic Therapy, and is continued for life as a preventative."

Dr.Manner went to Loyola University as a developmental biologist, which means that " Anything that has to do with development of cells, normal or abnormal, falls into my province." He was at that time concerned with pollution of the adjacent Lake Michigan and the effects of various pollutants on developing fish embroys. He came to realise that most pollutants were carcinogenic. Thus, enter cancer cells. At this time he had 30 years of research behind him. He had a very big laboraty and staff, running 2 to 3000 mice at any one time.

He states shortly after the interview started,: "…And remember, please, that I was not pro=Laetrile or anti-Laetrile. A scientist has no business being for or against anything. His only business is to be objective…" H’mm! Enforcers please note.

He set out to test Dr. Krebs" theory, that Vit.B17 has to be broken down by the enzyme Beta- glucosidase in the cancer cell to form hydrogen cyanide which attacks the cancer cells and kills them. Any excess cyanide is then neutralised by another enzyme in all normal tissue called Rhodanese, which breaks down any excess HCN into harmless sodium thiocynate and hippuric acid, both of which are released in urine.

ACRES USA And you decided to test it scientifically?

DR MANNERS Yes. The first thing we wanted to do was check out the enzymes. Are they really where Krebs suggested they were? In general they were. There were a few changes in that we found there was quite a bit in the liver...but in general the highest tissue containing the unlocking enzyme was the tumour tissue itself. Other tissues were very low in it. The second thing we wanted to see was whether or not the material broke down as suggested. So what we did was we injected laetrile into the animals and then we collected their urine for 24 hours looking for the end product--sodium thiocyanate--and hippuric acid, two of the neutralized end products of laetrile.

It was there. As we increased the dosage of laetrile we also got an increase of these compounds in the urine. All this was reported in the scientific journals.

One of the charges being made at that time...and because the FDA's back is against the wall, they're starting to reinstitute those that laetrile is poisonous. Just a few weeks ago a Dr Lewis...said something about eating lettuce with laetrile pills was liable to cause all kinds of problems. My phone rang off the wall due to this....It was a scare tactic. I object to that coming from the government of the US. I object to that poster hanging in post offices and in doctors offices Laetrile Warning. I've challenged the FDA on national TV--that every one of those statements is not just a half truth, but a downright lie, and they know it. And they are just making an attempt to re-scare the American people.

ACRES USA What about the little girl story allegedly killed by laetrile poisoning?

DR MANNERS Yes, I was lecturing in Buffalo, New York, and a man stood up and asked how I can make strong statements about laetrile when the FDA is making the opposite statements? And how he would have to take theirs...look at that little girl....who died after taking her fathers laetrile tablets.

Just then a lady stood up and said...I think I am entitled to answer that question as I am that little baby's mother. She told the true story, which was that the baby never touched her father's tablets. The doctor...knowing the father was on laetrile...marked down possible cyanide poisoning. At the hospital they used a cyanide antidote, and it was the antidote that killed the child. And yet that statement will continue to appear even though they know it is a lie.

ACRES USA In regard to this alleged toxicity, what have been your findings?

DR MANNERS We ran the tests. We started injecting animals with laetrile. We started with dosages that were very small and ended up with dosages 10 times the maximum dose ever given to any human being in any clinic in the world. After a 4 week period of daily injections, not one of the animals was dead. Not one was sick. In fact, every one looked much better than the controls---hair shiny, eyes glistening, and this was understandable because what we were giving them was not a drug but a natural food product, what Dr Dean Burke called vitamin B17.

ACRES USA You have appeared on platforms opposite FDA spokesman. Why would a scientist refuse to consider your valid scientific evidence?

DR MANNERS I can only speculate on this every meeting I was opposite an FDA representative, Dr Young.....this time it was different as we had finished the toxicity studies. We had shown it to be non-toxic. This was published and sent to the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and to Sloane Kettering. Then at the next legislature meeting I heard Dr Young say to the senators, "Gentlemen, the FDA cannot support the use of laetrile because it is an unsafe substance." I looked at him and said how can you say that? You have my report that it is non-toxic. Oh, I didn't say it was toxic, I said it was unsafe. So you see they are changing the definition. He said "We mean by unsafe that if a person uses it they might not use orthodox therapy", and so for this reason the FDA considers it unsafe.


Thus, Dr. Manner’s results also proved Laetrile to be successful and non-toxic. But he knew that the FDA was constantly saying that the results were negative. So he repeated his own experiments, but used the FDA’s animals and tumors, the Laetrile and the doses they used_ and got the FDA results that Laetrile was useless. Why the difference?

So he travelled " to learn something more about Laetrile " to clinics using Laetrile: -

"…in California with Dr. Richardson, Mexico with Dr. Contreras and Dr. Sotox, Jamaica with Drs. Brown and Ransburger, Hanover with Dr. Nieper.."

Dr. M:" Each regime was a little different. But one thing was common of all of them~

and I don’t know how this escaped me and how it escaped MSKand the NCI~ was that Laetrile was never used by itself….always in conjunction with a complete therapeutic program. And here we were in the lab just using Laetrile." From lab to lab he had found things in common…All of them used various forms of enzymes. All of them used Vit.C and Vit. A. "……

ACRES USA Did you duplicate these things in your studies?

DR MANNERS Yes. We started a new series on breast cancers to try to determine whether or not laetrile was effective. It was the results of these experiments that they said dropped a bombshell on the scientific community. I shouldn't have because everything I was doing was relayed by the week to those other national labs if they wanted to follow along with me. We eliminated vitamin C, as it makes its own, unlike humans. That left us with laetrile, enzymes and vitamin A.. We scaled them down to the size of a mouse—so for the purposes of what I am telling you here let me scale them back up again.

ACRES In terms of a human being?

DR MANNERS Yes, in terms of a 60 kilo person.. Laetrile was injected intramuscularly in the rump area every day..and we gave 9-12 grams of laetrile. The vitamin A..we gave 1 million international units each and every day. Now I'm sure you will say "that sure is toxic" and you are right. It is toxic if it is used in the same form in which you normally see vitamin A. But we didn't use it that way. We had it made for us in Germany. One of the firms there manufactured a material called A-mulsion.

This is vitamin A that is highly emulsified, broken down into very fine little particles. It looks like a foam when you use it. When that's taken into the body, it plays tricks. Instead of going to normal channels and going up to the liver where vitamin A damage usual occurs, it goes into the lymphatic system, and this by-passes the liver, and therefore you don't have this toxic effect.

ACRES The enzymes?

DR MANNERS They were not hard enzymes. And were from the lentil bean, the garden pea, the papaya plant, the thymus gland of the rat, and pancreatin from the beef pancreas. This mixture comes from Drs Wolf and Rasburger. It has been shown to have tremendous effect on the tumour.

ACRES What is the rational behind each of these things?

DR MANNERS The tumour as it grows does not belong in the body. I'm convinced that the normal state of the human body is health, it has enough within itself to bring it back to health. We see that in the tremendous surgery that is being done --transplants. We read over and over however, that whenever a heart is put into a person, rejection takes place, it does not belong there, and the body knows it. So rejection takes place. I am convinced that a tumour does not belong in the body and the body should reject it.

ACRES Why does it not do this?

DR MANNERS As a tumour grows it develops around itself a layer of protein which is almost like a plastic bubble. And that thing around a tumour prevents it from being recognised as a foreign invader. So what our enzymes do is not dissolve that tumour, but that protein around the outside. When this is done the body knows it shouldn't be there, and it recognizes it. And the immune system takes over. But usually the immune system at that time is very weak. This is well documented.

ACRES What happens when the protein is fully peeled off that tumour?

DR MANNERS That is when laetrile goes to work. It releases its deadly cyanide and goes to work on those cells.

ACRES USA How did the animal experiments prove this out?

DR MANNERS We used 105 animals in one test. They were broken down into 2 groups. The first was the experimental group. There were 84 animals, 84 that had developed breast cancer. They were the control group. They received injections and oral ingestion’s of physiological saline solution, the normal body fluids. Just to make sure it wasn't the injection or the fluid we were giving. The other animals received the laetrile, the vitamin A and the enzyme. The enzyme was specifically made so that I could inject it near and around the tumour site itself in order to get rid of the protein layer.

ACRES The results?

DR MANNERS Absolutely fantastic. They have been repeated a number of times and people who have been skeptical...who have been to the lab...are seeing it happen. These experiments are still going on. At the end of a 4 to 6 week period...and there was a spread in time...we got some real results. At the end of the second enzyme injection a small pimple appeared at the site of the tumour. It looked like a whitehead, or a boil. After the next injection that whitehead would burst open, and a white pus came out. We took that white pus and put it on a microscope slide and bought it to the pathology lab of the American International Hospital, which works with me....they were dead cancer cells. As we continued the treatments, the pus moved out. As it moved out the tumours got smaller and smaller. At the end of 4-6 weeks in 90% of the animals, the tumours were completely gone. And those animals were taken to the hospital, and autopsied and given a completely clean bill of health. Not a cancer cell anywhere. The other 10% were also affected. At the close of this particular experiment they were in a partial stage of regression.

ACRES USA Have you taken this story to the general public?

DR MANNERS I presented the general story together with slide pictures before over 2000 people in Chicago. It was the annual meeting of the National Health Federation. The next day instead of the AMA at least saying "Well we might have something here" they came out with a blast that went nationwide. The blast had nothing to do with what I was doing or the results achieved. They simply condemned for presenting my material in the wrong place.

ACRES USA What did they want you to do?

DR MANNERS Take it through the normal scientific channels, but I had a special reason for not doing so this time. I'm not playing games with cancer. This would have taken 18 months to 2 years to clear the various journal editors. For a lab to pick it up and repeat it would take another 2 years. That's 4-5 years. A cancer patient doesn't have 5 years. If I were to do again I would do it exactly as I have done, in spite of the ACS.

Now surely the intelligent FDA wouldn’t deliberately leave out the enzymes to get the results they wanted. After all they still say Laetrile is no good

Dr. Manner was also interviewed by Mother editor Bruce Woods, and the interview printed in The Cancer Control Journal, Vol.6, Nos. 1-6. He also re-iterated in that interview that " All of our results were reported in the scientific Journals. It is abundantly clear, therefore, that ALL of the Enforcers must be well aware of Laetrile’s success and non-toxicity.


Dr. Manners refers to a 5-year span being necessary for Laetrile to pass through the normal scientific channels before it would be accepted by the FDA. Today, the situation is worse. The only organisations having the necessary finances to carry out clinical trials are the drug companies i.e. the Drug Cartel. Considering the proven unjust vilification that is heaped upon Laetrile and Pro-Laetrilists in the medical profession by today’s enforcers, permitting such a course of action would bury forever any hope of Vit.B17 Metabolic Therapy ever seeing the light of day. The engineered "results" obtained by the Drug Cartel would see to that. So, God bless those sincere, caring doctors who are concerned for the ethics of their profession, and who have the guts to care for suffering humanity and save lives by offering Amygdalin/Laetrile/Vit.B17.


Dr. Binzel’s Results: Outstanding!

Having seen Dr. Manning’s results from scientific research, and,as a result, the vindication of Dr. Krebs’ theory that Vit.B17/Amygdalin/Laetrile is a successful treatment for cancer, let us now look at Dr. Binzel’s results. I quote from Chapter 12 of his book:

"Nothing that has been said so far in this book would be of any significance if there were not some statistics to show that the nutritional approach to the treatment of cancer offers the cancer patient a greater quality and quantity of life than does so-called "orthodox" treatment.

Statistics are meaningless unless you know how those statistics were derived. In my studies, I went back through my records from 1974 through the end of 1991. All of the patients that I included were diagnosed by physicians other than me and their diagnoses were confirmed by pathology reports. I then compared my results to those of the American Cancer Society. In this section, I want to give the results of my study of patients who had primary cancer. I want to stress that in this section I looked at only those patients whose original diagnosis was primary cancer, with no metasteses at the time. The results of the patients whose original diagnoses showed metastic disease will be discussed later.


Patients excluded from this study:

It has been my opinion for some years that it may take as long as six months of nutritional therapy for the defense mechanisms of the body to begin to respond. Thus, I excluded from my study all patients with primary cancer who died within the first six months of treatment. These were patients whose defense mechanisms had been badly damaged or completely destroyed by their disease, the treatment they had received or a combination of both. Almost all of those in this group who were excluded were patients who had rapidly growing tumors in spite of (or perhaps because of) all of the radiation and/or chemotherapy they had received. They had been told by their radiologist and/or oncologist that their treatments had failed and there was nothing more that could be done. Usually the white blood ceils and the body's ability to manufacture white blood cells had been destroyed. The white blood cells are the body's first line of defense against infection and, as mentioned in Chapter Two, are ultimately responsible for destroying cancer cells. Some of the patients had developed severe heart damage, kidney damage, etc. from their treatment. There were, at most, five patients who had a sudden, complete breakdown of their defense mechanisms and within a matter of a few weeks developed large, inoperable tumors. In these cases, no form of treatment was going to be of any value to these patients. Too much damage had already been done to the body. It was possible in some of these patients to improve the quality of their lives, but not the quantity.


What all of this means is that out of 180 patients, over a period of 18 years, 87.3% did not die from their disease. Even if I concede that the 7 patients who died of "cause unknown" did, indeed, die from cancer, I am still looking at 16.7% of patients who died from their cancer and 83.3% who did not. One hundred and thirty-eight of these patients are still alive. Fifty-eight of these patients (42%) have a follow-up of between two years and four years. Eighty of these patients (58%) have a follow-up of between five and eighteen years. It is important to realize that this is ongoing. By the end of 1992, some new patients would come into the two-year category, and those in the four-year category would move into the five-year category.

I now ask you to compare my results with the statistics of the American Cancer Society for primary cancer. The American Cancer Society tells us that in primary cancer, with early diagnosis and early treatment with surgery, and/or radiation and/or chemotherapy, eighty-five percent (85%) of the patients will die from their disease within five years.

'Nuff said


Yes, you are going to get more statistics. All of the patients in the study that follows had metastatic cancer when I first saw them. It was not I who made the diagnosis of metastatic cancer. These diagnoses were made by other physicians and confirmed by pathology reports.

Patients excluded from this study:

As I stated previously, it is my opinion that it takes as long as six months for the defense mechanisms of the body to respond to nutritional therapy in primary cancer patients. In metastatic cancer it may take may take as long as one year. Thus, I have excluded from my study all metastatic cancer patients who died within the first year of treatment.1 The reason for this is the same as stated previously. Most of these patients had developed widespread metastases while on radiation and/or chemotherapy and had been told that nothing else could be done. The low white blood cell count and the inability to manufacture white blood cells was there. The heart damage, kidney damage, etc. was there. The total damage to the entire body was greater than in primary cancer, and the time needed to repair that damage was longer. Again, it was possible through nutritional therapy to increase the quality of life of some of these patients, but not the quantity.


From the period 1974 through 1991 thirty-two of those patients (29.6%) died from their disease. Seven patients developed further metastases while on the program. Three of those seven died from their disease, 3 are still alive and 1 died of a cause unrelated to his disease. A total of 47 patients died. As stated above, 32 died from cancer. Six died of causes unrelated to their disease, and 9 died of cause unknown. Again, "cause unknown" is for the same reason that I used for my primary cancer study.

This means that out of 108 patients with metastatic cancer, over a period of 18 years, 76 of those patients (70.4%) did not die of their disease. Again, even if I concede that the 9 patients who died of "cause unknown" did, indeed, die from their cancer, I am looking at 37.9% who died from their disease and 62.1% who did not. Sixty-one of those patients are still alive. Thirty of those patients (49%) had a follow-up of between two and four years. Thirty-one of them (51%) had a follow-up of between five and eighteen years. Again, you must realize that this is an ongoing figure, just as I stated for my primary cancer patients.

The American Cancer Society tells us that in metastatic cancer, with early diagnosis and early treatment with surgery, and/or radiation and/or chemotherapy, only 0.1% (one out of one thousand) of those patients will survive 5 years.

If you consider only those patients who have survived five years or more, this means that my results were 287% better than those reported by the American Cancer Society for the treatment of metastatic cancer by "orthodox" methods alone UNQUOTE.

Now would you believe that anybody would be so bloody stupid as to ignore these results? Well,the FDA,NCI, the Dept. of Health in Qld.,and theTGA in Canberra do, and I guess I should add my Quack Quacks. The reasons, oops, sorry, the excuse used is that the results were not published in a peer review Journal. So, you people reading this and anyone else suffering from cancer are going to raise hell , or we are going to die from chemotherapy. How, I will get to later. The situation in the land of Oz, this lucky country, is that we are being left to die unnecessarily by an uncaring Government, while others in communist countries and other nations are being treated with Vit.B17 successfully. Now you think about this. IS IT HOMICIDE, MURDER OR GENOCIDE.? Those of you who have lost loved ones ask yourself whether they died unnecessarily. Was a successful alternative treatment available? I’ll give you two examples to ponder.

1.The Geelong Adviser, 10th May, 2003. " Apricots Cured Me of Cancer " A Mr. Ron Rankin of Newtown, was given 4 to 5 years to live. He commenced eating 60 apricot kernels daily,( high in Vit. B17 ) plus pineapples (for the enzymes }and placed himself on a diet which excluded virtually all meat and alcohol but which was high in vitamins In 12 months the 61 Y. O. lost 16 kg. and reduced his PSA count from 95 t0 2.8.Details at ( )

You won’t believe that even with this news article there appears: " Investigations by the American Cancer Society have found no scientific evidence B17 shrinks tumours or increases cancer survival rates " They lie of course-but are the newspapers under instructions to add these little comments whenever a mention is made of cancer success? Note the comment in no.2.

Women’s Day,March 31, 2003,p.88. " I went to My Own Wake. " Marilyn Blake was given 5

weeks to live by her oncologist. Weight, 45kg.. so sick with cancer she couldn’t lift a fork Her husband decided to look for alternative treatments. He soon found out that many doctors regarded treatment with B17 as Quackery. However, he eventually found a doctor who had trained under Dr. Nieper , a pro-Laetrilist with a clinic in Germany. Three years later, when the story was written in Women’s Day, Nancy was a happy 71y.o. who says she has never felt better. And in a little box at the end of the Article we find "According to the Cancer Council of South Australia , B17 has been proposed as a remedy since 1845 but " The available research does not support the claim it’s a cancer cure.’

A comment: Note how deceitful these people are.Vit.B17 does not necessarily shrink the tumor, as you are aware from this website, so this reference is worthless. The lie that it doesn’t increase survival rates is just that, proof of which is clearly given in Dr. Binzel’s results. With regard to the C.C. of S.A., no doctor I know of has ever claimed it as a cure. Naturally they don’t mention the miserable record of chemotherapy, but I will later. Nor do they mention that Vit.B17 kills the cancer cells.



Dr, Kanematsu Sugiura and Dr. Ralph Moss

(At the time both employees of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Research Centre )

Many Laetrile cynics believe, and in my opinion correctly, that the object of MSK’s decision to conduct a 5 year trial into Laetrile , 1972-1977 was to demonstrate that Laetrile was useless in treating cancer. Dr. Sugiura , the Senior Researcher at MSK was chosen to head the study. I wish to pause here because, as stated by Phillip Day in his ‘ Cancer, why we’re still dying to know the truth, ‘ "Dr. Sugiura’s report was to prove a monumental embarrassment to " Memorial Sloan-Kettering and the monied corporate powers which funded it. "

The reason for that statement is the reputation of Dr, Sugiura himself. His work " was trusted and his honesty and integrity admired and unquestioned by all. " To such an extent in fact that when, in 1962, hundreds of the well-respected Japanese researcher’s papers were published in a four volume set, Dr. C.C. Stock, head of MSK’s testing division, penned the following introduction:-

" Few if any names in cancer research are as widely known as Kanematsu Sugiura’s…Possibly the highest regard in which his work is held is best characterised 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. "

Dr. Sugiura found as follows from his 5 year study:

  1. Laetrile inhibited the growth of tumours.
  2. It stopped the spreading (metastasing) of cancer in mice
  3. It relieved pain
  4. It acted as a cancer preventative
  5. It improved general health.

His official report read:- "The results clearly show that amygdalin significantly inhibits the appearance of lung matastases in mice bearing spontaneous mammary tumors and increases significantly the inhibition of the growth of primary tumors…

Laetrile also seems to prevent slightly the appearance of new tumors… The improvement of health and appearance of the treated animals in comparison to the control is always a common observation…." Dr. Sugiura also stated that he had "never observed complete regression of these tumors " in all his cosmic experience "with other chemotherapeutic agents."

Two of Dr. Sugiura’s colleagues had also duplicated his findings with amygdalin. They were Dr. Elizabeth Stockert and Dr. Lloyd Schoen, both bio-chemists at MSK, the latter even obtaining a 100%cure rate among Swiss albino mice with Dr. Manner’s additional enzyme supplements – later to become the basis for the Vit. B17 Metabolic Therapy of today. So, what did MSK do when they suddenly realised that three of their researchers, including the world renowned Dr. Sugiura had not only proved the efficacy of Amygdalin/Laetrile, but also made their findings a matter of public record? Congratulations all round ? A nobel prize for Dr. Sugiura and his colleagues? No way.

They did this: In brief, they immediately carried out more trials in which Dr. Sugiura was given a minor role, subsequently called a press conference on the 15th June 1977, forbade Dr, Sugiura to say a word thereat, and announced:-

" After careful and exhaustive testing, Laetrile was found to posses neither preventative, nor tumor-regressant, nor anti-metastasic nor curative anti-cancer activity."

Believe it? You’d better! because they went one further! In July,1977 Dr. L.Thomas, President of SK TESTIFIED at Government hearings under Senator Kennedy:

" There is not one particle of scientific evidence to suggest that Laetrile possesses any anti-cancer properties at all. I am not aware of any scientific papers, published in any of the world’s accredited journals of medical science, presenting data in support of the substance, although there are several papers, one of these recently made public by Sloan Kettering Institute, reporting the complete absence of anti_cancer properties in a variety of experimental animals. " ( The underlining is mine.) Engineered results?

As to the last sentence, Is That So! They Lied! Allow me to introduce Dr. Dean Burk, co-founder of the NCI, retired and regarded as an honest man, who had this to say:


See How They Lie, See How They Lie

By Dean Burk, National Cancer Institute Research, Retired

Dr. Schmidt, FDA Commissioner, as cited on about March 25, 1974…"Every study to date has not found any evidence of efficacy" with laetrile, and "if there was one shred of evidence from animal or cell systems I would issue an IND" (Investigational New Drug status that approves clinical testing in humans).

Mr. Robert Wetherell, Acting Director, Office of Legislative Services, FDA, "No evidence of antitumour activity has been found in any of the tests" with Laetrile, in current issued status report.

Dr. Frank Rauscher, Director, NCI, "I would certainly not turn off Laetrile if it had an iota of activity that we could pinpoint. Unfortunately, there is no evidence at all," stated on March 31,1974 on the Mike Wallace 60 Minutes CBS Show.

Dr. Robert Hadsell, Officer of Cancer Communications, NCI, "All testing by NCI has found no evidence of activity against cancer" by laetrile, in letters sent throughout the US and abroad.

Dr. Jesse Steinfeld, former Surgeon General of the USHS, Laetrile "has repeatedly been tested in animal tumour systems at the NCI. In no instance did laetrile have activity in any animal tumour system. There is no basis for the use of laetrile in man based on the data derived from experiments in animals," in an interoffice memo sent to Dept Heads of the Mayo Clinic, Jan 1974.

Dr. Charles Moertel, of the Mayo Clinic, "Extensive animal tumour studies conducted independently at two outstanding cancer research centres—New York memorial Sloan Kettering (MSK) and the Southern Research Institute-—have shown this drug to be totally without evidence of anticancer activity." In aletter published in the Rochester (Minn.) Post Bulletin, Jan 21 1974.

The facts are, as partially detailed in the letter of March 22, 1974 from Dean Burk to Seymour Perry, that positive, statistically highly significant, anticancer activity by Laetrile in animal tumour systems has been observed in at least 5 independent institutions in 3 widely separated countries of the world, with a variety of animal cancers;

1). Southern Research Institute (Birmingham Alabama), for the NCI, in a majority of 280 BDF1 mice bearing Lewis lung cancers, treated with up to 400 mg Laetrile (Amygdalin MF) per kg body weight, with respect to increased median life span (Dec 3, 1973)

2). Sloan Kettering (New York) with CD8 F1 mice bearing spontaneous mammary carcinomas, inhibition of formation of lung metastases, inhibition of growth of primary tumours, and greater health and appearance of animal hosts, upon treatment with 1-2 gm Laetrile/per kg body weight/day. (June 13, 1973)

3). Scind Laboratories, University of San Francisco, 400 rats bearing Walker 256 carcinoma (200 treated with Amygdalin, 200 controls), with 80% increase in life span at optimum dosage (500 mg Amygdalin/kg body weight). (Oct 10, 1968) Cf. FDA-IND 6734 application, pp. 247-248, 00080-00093. NCI Director Carl Baker wrote Congressman Edwin W. Edwards on Jan 26, 1971: "The data provided by the McNaughton Foundation certainly indicates some activity in animal tumour systems" (emphasis added).

4). Pasteur Institute (Paris), with human cancer strain maintained in mice, treated at optimal dosage of 500 mg Amygdalin Marsan/kg body weight/day, increased life span and delayed tumour growth up to 100% (Dec 6, 1971).

5). Institute von Ardenne (Dresden, Germnay), H strain mice bearing Ehrlich ascites carcinoma treated with bitter almond amygdalin ad libitum in addition to regular chow diet, yielded increased life span and decreased rate of cancer growth, treatment beginning 15 days before cancer inoculation (arch. Geschwulstorsch. 42, 135-7 (1973).

No iota of activity, no shred of evidence? It will be interesting to see if FDA Commissioner Schmidt will indeed soon back up his word about issuing a Laetrile IND, a form of FDA approval, incidently, requiring no prior human data.(comment; The I.N.D. was never issued.)

Cancer News Journal Vol 9, no 3. Source: The Arlin J. Brown Inf Centre, Inc, PO Box 251, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060. 703 451 8638. Tel: 540 752 9511. E mail:

Dr. Moertel and Vitamin C trials for cancer at the Mayo Clinic


To which I would add, from Phillip day’s book:

Sheep fed the equivalent of 8-10mg of HCN per kilogram per day as linseed meal showed no toxic effects whatsoever (Franklin & Reid " Aust. Vet. Journal, 100:92,1944 ")

Sheep weighing 66kg. were intravenously administered a three-hour dose of 2.7gms. of B17 yielding 300mg.of HCN. New Zealand researchers Coop and Blakely reported that "…at no time during the experiment were even the slightest symptoms observed." A total of 568mg. of HCN was given to a 76kg. sheep in the course of an hour. The only symptom the animal showed was "a general sleepiness for an hour." (Coop & Blakely New Zealand Jnl. Of Sc. And Tech, 28th Feb. 1949,page 277; ibid,31:(3)1; ibid,Feb.1950,page 45.)

Van der Walt failed to produce chronic poisoning in sheep even after administering 3.2mg. HCN/kg. daily for two years. ( Van der Walt Vetinary Records,52:857,1940.)

The lies told by MSK resulted in G.Edward Griffin, listed in America’s " WHO"S WHO ", and founder of the Cancer Cure Foundation (visit the web ) having this to say in his book "World Without Cancer " American Media,1996, ISBN 0912986190

( available through CredencePublications at

" The directors and officers at Sloan-Kettering continued to denigrate Dr. Sugiura’s findings, claiming that no one else had ever been able to duplicate them. In other words, they lied. Not only did they lie, they did so on a subject that directly affects the lives of hundreds of thousands of cancer victims each year. It is not an exaggeration to say that over a million people have needlessly gone to their deaths as a result of that lie. There is a word for that. It is genocide."

It makes you wonder what sort of a Government we have when it lies(no pun intended) in bed with this lot.

As to the claim that there is no particle of evidence supporting Laetrile in peer journals, this too is another lie. The following is a bibliography of positive reports on Laetrile in the scientific journals mentioned:

Laetrile (Nitriloside) Bibliography

Guidetti, Ettore

Observations Preliminaries Sur Quelques Cas de Cancer Traites Par Un Glycuronoside Cyonogenetique. "Aca Unio Internationalis Contra Cancrum," X1 (No.2):156-158(1955). Read at the Sixth International Cancer Congress, Sao Paulo, July, 1954. (pp) "Edizioni Minerva Medica (1958)." Med., 468-471 (1954).

Tasca, Marco

Osservazioni Cliniche Sugli Effetti Terapeutici ci un Glicuronoside cianogenetico in Casi di Neoplasie Maligne Umane. "Gazzetta Medica Italiana (19pp). Edizioni Minerva Medica (1958)".


Navarro, Manuel D.

Laetrile-The Ideal Anti-Cancer Drug? "Santo Thomas J. Med., 9:468-471(1954).

Laetrile in Malignancy. Santo Thomas J. Med, 10:113-118(1955).

D. Sta. Ana, J.Zantua and G. Moral, Metastatic Pulmonary Carcinoma Treated with Laetrile (Report of a Case), "Unitas, 28:606-618(1955).

And C. L. Lagman, Breast Carcinoma with Lung and Bone Metastases Treated with Laetrile (Case Report), "Santo Thomas J. Med, 11:196-203 (1956)," "J. Philippine Med. Assn., 33:16-29(1957)" Biochemistry of Laetrile Therapy in Cancer, "Papyrus 1:8-9, 27-28 (1957).

Mechanism of Action and Therapeutic Effects of Laetrile in Cancer. "J. Philippine Med. Assn., 33:620-627 (1957)."

G. Gamez, A. Dizon, A. Perez, L. Maranan, and S. Alvarez

Chemotherapy of Cancer, Laetrile in Cancers of the Throat, "Philippine J. of Cancer 1:131-137 (1957)"

Five Years of Experience With Laetrile Therapy in Advanced Cancer, "Acto Unio Internationalis Contra Cancrum, XV (bis):299-221 (1959)." Read at the Symposium on Cancer Chemotherapy for Pacific Asian Area, International Union Against Cancer, Tokyo, October 1957.

Report on Proceedings of International Symposium on Cancer Chemotherapy at Tokyo, October 1957, "Santo Rhomas J. Med., 12:244-453 (1957)."

F. G. Guerrero and R. Sin

Laetrile Therapy of Breast Cancer. "Santo Thomas J. Med., 13:29-36 (1958)."

Biochemical Diagnosis and Treatment of Cancer, "Unitas, 31(No.2) 76pp. (1958)."

Republished as a book Manilla, Univ. of Santo Thomas Press 1958.

Navarro, R. P.

The Use of the Beard Anthrone Test in Certain Cases Inaccessable to or with Doubtful or Negative Biopsy. "Philippine J. of Cancer, 2: 123-136 (1958)."

Early Cancer Diagnosis with the Beard Anthrone Test (Navarro’s Modification), "Philippine J. of Cancer, 2: 285-304 1958", "Acta Unio Internationalis Contra Cancrum, XV1: 1482-1491 (1960)." Read at the Seventh International Cancer Congress, London, July 1958.

The Unitarian or Trophobalstic Thesis of Cancer, "Philippine J. of Cancer 3: 3-11 (1959)"

Early Cancer Detection-A Biochemical Approach, "Santo Thomas J Med. 15: 111-129 (1960)"

The Role of the Chemotheropeutic Agents in Cancer. "Bulletin of the Quezon Institute, Santo Thomas J. Med., 15: 443-450 (1960)".

Early Cancer Detection. "J. Philippine Med. Assn., 36: 425-432 (1960)."

Laetrile Therapy in Cancer. Read at the Eigth International Cancer Congress, Moscow, USSR, July 1962, "The Philippine Journal of Cancer, July -Sept., 1962."

Morrone, John A.

Chemotherapy of Inoperable Cancer. Preliminary Report of Ten Cases Treated with Laetrile (nitriloside), "Experimental Medicine and Surgery, #4, 1962."

Krebs, Ernst T., Jr., and N. R. Bouziane

Beta-Cyanophoric Glucuronosides and Glucosides (Nitrilosides). Their Rationale and Clinical Utilization in Human Cancer. "In Press".

Restifo, J.A. and M. A. Gama

The Use of Laetrile (Niltrioside) in the Treatment of Cancer, With Case Reports. "In M.S. (1962)."

Rossi, Benedetto; Guidetti Ettore and Deckers, Christian

Clinical Trial of Chemotherapeutic Treatment of Advances Cancers with 1-Mandelonitrile-Beta-Diglucoside. Presented at the Ninth International Cancer Congress in Tokyo, October 1956.

Harris, Arthur T.

Possible Palliative Value of Laetrile in Human Cancer. A Preliminary Report (1953). "In M.S."

Beasley, H. Earle

Twenty Months Review of the Effects of Laetrile in the Palliative Treatment of Cancer (1954). Read before the American College of Osteopathic Internists Convention at Philadelphia, 1954.


At the time of the disgraceful cover- up by MSK in the 1970’s that resulted in the unnecessary deaths of so many cancer sufferers,and which is still being forced upon us today by an uncaring Government, Dr. Ralph Moss was employed by MSK as the Asst. Director of Public Affairs. Dr. Moss states that in Public Affairs they were giving out statements that "…Laetrile was worthless, it was Quackery…" and he

"… was astonished that our most distinguished scientist would be bothering…" He said to Dr. Sugiura, "…Why are you doing this if it doesn’t work? " At which Dr.

Sugiura produced his laboratory books and showed him that Laetrile was dramatically effective in stopping the spread of cancer. "

By the 17th. of November,1977, Dr. Moss himself had obviously had enough of the lies and cover-up, and had the guts to call his own news conference at the Hilton Hotel in N.Y.He accused MSK of scientific fraud and cover-up, and produced documentation and named names in support of his claims. He was fired the next day

Since then Dr. Moss has been a strong advocate for alternative treatments for cancer. He publishes his own weekly newsletter and to obtain them free, join at He has written a book "The Cancer Syndrome in 1980, " Chapter 9 of which is devoted to the Sloan-Kettering trials, and followed this up with a second, " The Cancer Industry:The Classic expose on the Cancer Establishment " Equinox Press,1995, ISBN 1881025098.

His website and that of Dr. Mercola (given below ) are the two most read sites on the net with regard to cancer.


Quackwatchers are those poor misguided souls who turn a blind eye to all things Laetrile, despite all the positive evidence which is there for them to read,and ,as soon as they see the word :"Laetrile", start frothing at the mouth. For example, William Jarvis, a quackwatch writer, states: ‘ Quackery can harm our democratic society when large numbers of people hold wrong beliefs ‘(I.E. according to THEM! ) "about the nature of cancer and the best way to deal with it." (Jervis, William T. " How Quackery Harms" )( I suggest you all have a read and a good laugh in view of what I have said on this website. I would point out to these people that Professor Beard’s early 1900’s Trophoblastic Theory of Cancer has stood for 100 years and has not been overturned. Dr. Krebs Senr. examined over 15,000 scientific papers on cancer and concluded that the Trophoblast Theory was correct.)

And my oh my how right they are. But they shouldn’t talk about themselves that way, People like them are most certainly harming the large numbers of cancer sufferers in this world. You have to feel sorry for them. They blindly refuse to see the scientific proof on offer, they belittle humanitarian doctors practising Laetrile successfully in countries such as England France Germany Italy Russia, Belgium Canada America Mexico The Philippines the Caribbean etc. I would love to see them in a debate on cancer with Dr.Krebs, Dr. Manner, Dr. Mercola, Dr.Moss and Phillip Day who is a researcher!! I mean a one on one,too!

It is time the tables turned. I have moved, seconded and passed a motion that from henceforth we who know the truth shall call all Quackwatchers "Quack Quacks."

They must really envy those hundreds of thousands of patients who are successfully treated with Vit.17/Laetrile/Amygdalin, and other alternative treatments each year in those countries mentioned. They remind me of the unfortunate Dr.Moertel, America’s no.1 anti-Latrileist who died from- you guessed it-cancer. His Chemotherapy didn’t do him much good in the end.I trust they will have the courage of their convictions and have chemotherapy if they get cancer? To introduce one of them:

In the Nov.2003 newsletter of the Brisbane Prostate Cancer Support Network, it is stated that a Mr. Harry Menz has posted a short history re Laetrile on John Foley’s Qakatak site. If Mr. Menz is interested in the history of B17 he should go to Immediately below the reference to Mr. Menz appears the following "…the FDA and the National Cancer Institute eventually supported an independent multi-centre trial on the product which was reported in the New England Journal of Medicine. The study concluded that Laetrile simply doesn’t work. Of the 178 patients in the trial, more than ¾ died – a survival rate comparable to cancer patients receiving no treatment at all." An accompanying editorial in the journal concluded that Laetrile had "had its day in court", and that "no sensible person will want to advocate its further use. The only scientific references you will find to Laetrile in peer-reviewed medical journals since are case reports of patients dying from cyanide poisoning."

The article in the newsletter is headed "Rising Interest In Laetrile In Queensland" by Queensland Health and the Medical Board of Queensland. I suspect, rightly or wrongly, that Queensland Health were having a shot partially at me, as I have been somewhat forceful in pointing out to them practically all of what you have read above. I have asked them to give me proof of any research that has duplicated that of Dr. Krebs and Dr. Sugiura etc. which has not obtained the successful results that they did. They ignored the request. I have asked them why we in Australia have to die unnecessarily when, if we had the money, we could go to practically any overseas country and be treated successfully. No answer. In fact they don’t seem to like questions because they never answered any. They told me a batch of Laetrile imported from Mexico was found to be contaminated. When I asked for details so that I could verify that the Laetrile was not a patented chemical derivative I was ignored.

With regard to the statement that ¾ of the 178 cancer patients treated with Laetrile in the multi-centre trial died, it is not a direct lie. I think you can conclude that it infers that Laetrile is no good and even go so far as to speculate that Laetrile killed them (toxicity). It is however most certainly deceit of the greatest magnitude.

The truth of this trial has been uncovered and was reported by Jon Christian Ryter in 2003 (It is a 17 page down load on the net at ) and includes the Jason Vale trials per courtesy of the FDA.

The following is taken from my letter (February,2004) to the Prostate Support Network:-

"…I am asking you to grant me a good old fashioned Australian "Fair Go" and, in the interests of all cancer sufferers and a level playing field, to extend to me the decency and courtesy of the right of reply with approximately the same space allocated to the Queensland Health and the Medical Board of Queensland in the newsletter referred to.

Freedom of choice, or free will if you wish, is the God given right of every person. If we had such a choice for cancer sufferers, there would be a natural system of checks and balances. As you well know we are denied that choice which leaves the drug cartel in a largely self-regulatory position. In all my 80 years, I have never seen self-regulation work in situations where money is involved. Drugs are rushed onto the market to beat the opposition without proper care. Thus, the drug cartel has a vested interest in "prohibiting", for want of a better word, any substance being put on the market which is a threat to their lucrative trade in death. (and in particular a natural treatment that cannot be patented):-

"…some 67% of people who die during cancer treatment do so through opportunistic infections arising as a direct result of the immune system failing because of the aggressive and toxic natur of the drugs…." (The home of Orthomolecular Oncology:-(

I am quite sure my reply will never be printed. So much for a level playing field!! And that was the trigger that decided me to go on the net. But then, as they are supported by the Queensland Cancer Fund..??

Before we look at Jon Ryter’s Professional Evaluation of the multi-centre trial, there are some dates and information in the report on Jason Vale’s trials which are of interest.;-

On October 28,1998 the FDA sent Vale a letter informing the anticancer entrepreneur that the United States government considered Laetrile to be a "drug" and not a natural vitamin supplement. The

letter (shown on left) began: "This letter is in reference to your promotion and distribution of the unapproved drug Laetrile in the form of your products: ‘Apricot seeds’, ‘Vitamin B-17’, and ‘Amygdalin’ ampules. Labeling for these products make therapeutic claims which cause the products to be drugs as defined in Section 201(g) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. Labeling is not limited to the immediate product containers but includes all promotional material including video tapes which you distribute with your products..."

"… Dr. Ernest T. Krebs, Jr. began using Laetrile to treat cancer patients in California in the 1950s. (Laetrile has been used successfully in Russia as a cancer-fighting drug since 1948. Amygdalin has been used, either in a solid or liquid form, to treat cancer in most of the nations of the world since the mid-19th century. It is banned only in the United States.) In 1971 the FDA banned Laetrile from interstate commerce. However, several States, bowing to pressure from Laetrile users, legalized the intrastate sale of the apricot seed extract. In 1977, the US District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin ruled that amygdalin " a drug within the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, and that injectable amygdalin is a prescription drug…"

"…Vale did a good job of convincing those who ascribe to the use of alternative medicines that he

was the latest government scapegoat. Eliezer Ben-Joseph, a naturopathic physician and the host of the radio talk show, Natural Solutions, in El Paso, Texas took up Vale’s defense on his radio program. He considered Vale’s case to be a freedom issue, and denounced the government’s prosecution of the anticancer entrepreneur as an inappropriate use of judicial power. "It’s vindictive prosecution," Ben-Joseph declared on his program. "We’re talking about apricots here...and yet the government is so drastically opposed to having this information out." Ben-Joseph declared the government’s interest in Vale "ludicrous," noting the government had run clinical tests on Laetrile and concluded that it had no medicinal value. Ben-Joseph poophahed the credibility of the trials observing that "...concerns have been expressed about the way the study was conducted," adding that some recently developed cancer treatments utilized an artificial cyanide which, he pointed out, was very similar to the organic cyanide that is emitted from amygdalin when it comes into contact with the enzyme beta-glucosidase. Laetrile, Ben-Joseph admitted, does not provide a cure. "There is no cure for cancer," he said. "But there are a lot of things we can do that augment how metabolism works. These are chemicals the body would use to detoxify or get rid of cancer.... To make a law," he concluded, "that says that the public cannot eat an apricot pit because they think it might keep people from going to regular cancer therapy, I think, is a ludicrous jump in jurisdiction."

"…References to the use of the pharmaceutical use of the pulp of apricot and peach seeds has been found in the writings of Pier Andres Mattiott (Matthiolus) in his principle work, Commentari in Sex Libros Pedacii Dioscorides, which was published in 1544. Mattiott’s work was the most widely read book on botany in the world at that time. Thirty-two thousand copies of this book were in circulation. Mattiott described the use of apricot seed pulp as a poultice to heal tumors.

Botanist Jonathan Hartwell worked as a research scientist at the Natural Products Division of the National Cancer Institute from 1938 until his retirement in 1975. He devoted a life of research to one subject: botanical sources for cancer treatment.
After his retirement, Hartwell wrote the book
Plants Used Against Cancer. The book was published by Quarterman Publications in Lawrence, Massachusetts in 1981. Hartwell died shortly after the publication of his book, and within a year or two after that Quarterman Publications went out of business. A few copies of the book remain in private collections. On October 2, 1981, not long after Hartwell’s book was published, the Board of Scientific Counselors at the NCI voted to abolish the NCI research grant which funded all natural product research dealing with the development of

anticanceragents from plants or seeds.Jim Duke, who promoted Hartwell’s after the death of the botanist,noted somberly thatthat "...I fear this signals the end of significant government sponsored research in the United States on medicinal plants, leaving research to the pharmaceutical firms who have shown relative disinterest in plant products." One of the plants Duke was referring to was cassava (and other geographic variations of the manihot esculenta plant that grow in Africa, South America, Central America and as far north as the southwestern United States).
Cassava, like apricot seeds, produce hydrogen cyanide which, when it comes into contact with active cancer cells, kills them. In the bush country of Africa, and in Central and South America, the cassava plant is used to promote the healing of snakebites, boils, flu, hernia, inflammations of the joints, and a variety of sores. The stems of the cassava plant are boiled or fried and eaten as a food. In the case of cassava, it contains the enzyme linamarase which releases hydrogen cyanide if it is not harvested and prepared properly. Many people in the third world countries which use cassava as a dietary supplement suffer from cyanide side effects such as vertigo, headaches, confusion, convulsions, and sometimes, comas
(Well,Well ! Now I wonder is this the source of the claim by the drug cartel that apricots are toxic? Do you think they would…….)

Nevertheless, the artificial amygdalin that is currently being tested in clinical studies as a cancer treatment was reportedly synthesized from cassava and not either apricots or peaches.
In his book,
Plants Used Against Cancer, Hartwell observed: "The National Cancer Institute has screened about 45,000 higher plant species of activity against cancer. As of 1977, about 3,000 of these had demonstrated reproducible activity. A small fraction were appropriate for screening [and] should perhaps be accelerated....Although no exciting new leads developed during my association with the program, some plant species with anticancer activity will suffer extinction before they are ever studied. Some natural drugs that could save thousands of lives and alleviate much suffering will disappear from the face of the Earth, irretrievable, without ever being used..."

Jon Christian Ryter

Professional Evaluation Of:-

The 1980’s Mayo Clinic and three Other prominent Cancer Centres Clinical Trial for Laetrile

FUNDED BY…Guess Who!! …The NCI

IN CHARGE: Dr. Moertel – The most anti-alternative medicine physician in the country.

Extracts from follow

"In the 1980s the Mayo Clinic and three other prominent cancer centers participated in a clinical trial for Laetrile. The National Cancer Institute funded the study. In charge of the test was Dr. Charles Moertel who headed the Mayo Clininc’s North Central Cancer Treatment Group study. (Moertel was probably not the best choice the NCI could have made to head up such a study since he was the most anti-alternative medicine physician in the country. Although he didn’t know it at the time, Moertel was himself dying from cancer when he headed up the study. Dr. Moertel also led the Mayo Clinic’s attack against Nobel prize winner Dr. Linus Pauling’s unconventional vitamin/amino acid treatment of cancer. Within a year of the NCCTG clinical tests, Moertel succumbed to his cancer.)….

Naturopathic physicians who have studied the medical pathology of the patients included in the study, and manner in which Dr. Moertel conducted the study, believe Moertel was biased and deliberately selected patients with very aggressive cancers who had been diagnosed as terminal even though they were ambulatory at the time--patients who most likely would not respond to alternative methods of treatment.
The NCI admits that the patients selected for the NCCTG study were all terminal, and that none of them had ever received chemotherapy or had endured any surgery to remove tumors. Further, Dr. Moertel admitted that he selected only those where the doctors knew that conventional cancer drugs would not work due to the types of cancers the patients had. Dr. Moertel did not want to "waste" people who could be saved with conventional treatment. The deck was stacked against the naturopathic physicians. The study was extremely biased since the only patients included were people with aggressive, nontreatable cancers that not even conventional cancer drugs could help. An honest, unbiased study would have included patients with a great variety of cancers at varying stages of development. To include only those written off as dead by the medical community shows a clear bias on the part of the study coordinator.

Curative Effects of Apricot Seeds.

Dr. Philip Binzel, Jr., M.D., a former physician with the FDA has been arguing for years that Laetrile is the answer to fighting, and curing, cancer. His book, Alive and Well, details his investigation--and his conclusions.
In the 1970s when the FDA banned both the import of amygdalin into the country from Mexico, and the interstate transportation of Vitamin B-17 from State to State, they claimed the reason for the ban was that amygdalin (apricot, peach and plum pits and apple seeds) contained traces of cyanide and if a consumer ate massive doses of amygdalin, it could prove to be lethal, or at least that the person consuming amygdalin risked severe toxic side affects. Clearly, the decision of the FDA to ban amygdalin was influenced by the pharmaceutical industry which has been experimenting with artificial forms of laetrile for several years since the FDA has changed its opinion too many times why Laetrile needed to be banned.
After the NCCTG study, the view of the FDA was that Laetrile was "neutral worthless." It did nothing. It had no medicinal value as an anticancer drug, nor would it do any serious damage to the people who used it other than to discourage them from seeking cancer treatment from a medial specialist.( This was the study headed by Dr.Moertel.) When the FDA went after, their view was that Laetrile was a drug by definition of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act and therefore had to be dispensed by a licensed physician. When the FDA came back against Jason Vale the second time, their view had changed. Once again, Laetrile was worthless as an anticancer agent and Vale was a con man who profited by deceiving unfortunate Americans with cancer into believing that apricot seeds would cure them.The FDA scientists missed what Dr. Binzel’s research uncovered.
The National Cancer Institute and the FDA knew from the NCCTG clinical tests that amygdalin created cyanide in cancer patients since they detected trace elements of the poison in all of the subjects
in the NCCTG study. They just didn’t know why it was there. Nor, apparently, did they take the time, or expend the effort, to discover the answer. No one was interested--no one, that is, except Dr. Philip Binzel.

"Laetrile does contain the cyanide radical [CN]. This same cyanide radical is contained in Vitamin B-12 and in berries such as blackberries, blueberries and strawberries. You never hear of anyone getting cyanide poisoning from B-12 or any of the above-mentioned berries, because they do not. The cyanide radical [CN] and hydrogen cyanide [HCN] are two completely different compounds, just as pure sodium [Na+]--one of the most toxic substances known to mankind--and sodium chloride [NaCl], table salt, are two completely different compounds."(Hence,apricot kernels and other other nitrosilic foods which contain Vit.B17 are not toxic.)
When the medical community first explored the possibility of using Laetrile as a cancer drug in the 1920s, they discovered that amygdalin secreted cyanide. They just didn’t understand what triggered it, and they were clueless why it was important. Cyanide was, after all, a poison that killed people. That was enough.
Hydrogen cyanide [HCN] is a chemical that kills cancer cells and leaves healthy cells intact. While the NCI found HCN in the patients in the NCCTG study, the FDA, a couple of years later found no evidence that Laetrile contained cyanide. Of course, the FDA tested the Laetrile extract. Cyanide, Dr. Binzel discovered, does not appear until Laetrile comes into contact with a cancer cell. At that point, cyanide is metabolized and at that time, it attacks and kills the cancer cell.

The reason the FDA flip-flops so much on whether or not Laetrile is a toxic element is that when they alleged that Laetrile was toxic in the first Jason Vale hearing, Vale’s lawyers challenged their claim and asked them to present evidence to that fact. The FDA admitted they had none. Nevertheless, they still insist that a minimum lethal dose of HCN is 100 mg per 150 lbs. In 1984 the FDA determined that an apricot seed contains 2.92 mg/g of HCN and a peach pit contains 2.50 mg/g. This is interesting since a later FDA test revealed that Laetrile, the serum form of amygdalin contains no HCN at all, and thus, is worthless as an anticancer agent."

Queensland Health and the Medical Board of Q.ld. came up with another Lulu in their article in the Newsletter. This is their statement:- "…The theories underlying the mechanism of action of Laetrile are unfounded. The claim that Beta-Glucosidase , the enzyme responsible for breaking down amygdalin, is abundant in cancerous cells is misleading. Analysis shows that onlt traces of this enzyme are present in animal tissues, In addition, the enzyme responsible for protecting the normal cells from cyanide toxicity, rhodanese, is present in equal amounts in both normal and cancerous tissues…


A vitamin is classified as an organic substance which is required to promote one or more essential biochemical reactions within the living cell (Comment: The vitamin certainly does this, as we have seen.) Disease will occur if deficiency is present .( Comment: Quite so .Cancer to be specific) and reversal of the disease is achievable through administration of the missing vitamin." Well there are about 15 peoples in this world who don’t get cancer because they eat foods containing Vit.B17. So, if vit.B17 kills all the cancer cells,we don’t have cancer. But if we don’t then eat foods containing Vit.B17, the cancer will come back. I don’t see any difference between this and the vitamins in natural

foods which prevent the re-occurrence of scurvy,beri-beri etc. Amygdalin/ laetrile has to be a vitamin

With regard to the accumulation of Beta-glucosidases in the cancer cells compared to the rest of our body, and the absence of rhodanese in the cancer cells compared to the rest of our body, Dr. Manner , a specialist in all types of cells has already proved this, as have many other cancer researchers.

In 1947, ( How the Quack Quack’s ever ? – missed this I"ll never know.) Fishman and Anylam found that:- "Tissue excised from malignant neoplasms [cancers]of various organs, including breast ,uterus, stomach,…abdominal wall and esophagus were found to contain 100 % TO 3000 % more glucuronidase (Note A glucosidase) activity than uninvolved adjacent tissue. Metastases to lymph nodes from cancers originating in various organs… contained B-glucuronidase in higher concentrations than the uninvolved lymph nodes." ( Fishman,W & Anylam, A. "The Presence of high beta-glucuronidase activity in cancer tissue." J. Biol. Chem.(1947),169:449-450.) and, "…elevated B-glucuronidase is probably characteristic of malignant cells." ( Fishman, W. & Anylam, A. " A comparison of the beta-glucuronidase activity of normal,tumor, and lymph node tissues of surgical patients", Science(1947), 106: 66-67 )."

In addition Dr.Krebs,E.T.Jnr.("The nitrilosides{vit.B17}: Their nature,occurrence and metabolic significance", J. Appl. Nutr.(1970 ),22: 75-86.) had this to say:- "In addition to their high levels of B-glucuronidase, malignant lesions are characterised by a generally profound deficiency of…rhodanese, as was reported by Homberger,Mendel, Rodney and Bowman. Rosenthal reported an 80% decrease in ehodanese in (cancerous )tissue, and a similar decrease was found in the leukemic invasion of tissues."

And, let’s add the man himself. Dr. Ernst T Krebs Jnr. in his FOCAL ACTION of LAETRILE ( NITRILOSIDE ) "…When the nitriloside however is parenterally administered, ( i.e.other than through the mouth ) as such it enters the blood stream as an intact molecule. Malignant lesions are focally characterised by an especially high and selective concentration of beta- glucosidase and beta- glucuronidase. An extensive literature describes the high focal concentration of beta- glucuronidase that chacterizes most malignant lesions. This concentration is often in excess of 300 times that of the contiguous somatic tissues. There is also a substantial literature describing the deficiency of the definitively malignant cell in rhodanese. The occurrence of beta-blucuronidase appears to be paralled by an equal concentration of beta-glucosidase. Both enzymes are described generically as beta- glucosidases…..

This nitriloside is selectively hydrolized at the malignant lesion by the beta-glucosidase in the rhodanese deficient lesion. In this way the CN ion is brought to the malignant cell in a highly concentrated and selective manner. It is true that there a number of normal tissues in the body that carry both beta-glucosidase and beta-glucuronidase, but they also carry a countervailing concentration of rhodanese, which completely protects such normal somatic tissue from the action of any cyanide ion that the beta-glucosidase or beta glucuronidase component of the tissue causes to be released from the hydrolized nitriloside, In each instance the rhodanese capacity in such tissues is proportional to, though in excess of, the beta-glucosidase capacity. This prevents the diffusion of the hydrolyzed CN and accounts for the fact that Laetrile ( nitriloside ) is completely non-toxicto somatic or non-malignant tissue, while being extremely and selectively toxic to the specific malignant cells that provide a situation in which nitriloside is hydrolyzed at a rapid rate in the absence of an adequate rhodanese system. While the studiesby Berry,Brown, Maxwell and Bischoff have shown in experimental animals, in domestic pets bearing spontaneous cancers, and in man that the malignant cell is selectively susceptible to cyanide ions diffusively and uniformly distributed among all body cells, the clinical work on Laetrile ( nitriloside ) as well as the early animal work, has shown that the selective susceptibility of the cancer cell to HCN may further exploited through the phenomenon of selective lysis (disintegration of a cell) at the malignant lesion…..

Taken from his same work, mentioned above, under the heading ‘ Clinical Studies ‘ Dr. Krebs had this to say:- "We have written nothing about the very extensive and very successful clinical investigation of nitriloside (Laetrile) that has been conducted by a number of highly competent workers over the world. Without exception, all of these men have reported one degree of success or another in advanced or terminal cases. No one who has actually used and studied the material has failed to report positive results though many who have neither used nor studied the material have criticized it. Such critics have described the provable, positive results , and even recoveries that have followed the use of nitriloside ( Laetrile ) in late or terminal cancer patients as an expression of

"the delayed therapeutic effects of prior radiation,surgery or chemotherapy." Since only advanced cases in which such measures have already failed have so far been given Laetrile ( nitriloside ), all such cases are theoretically subject to the critical explanation described. One clinician has pointed out that if nitriloside itself does not directly produce the results that usually follow its application, it does greatly increase the percentage of " delayed therapeutic effects " that follow seemingly unsuccessful prior measures. One can but anticipate that, when the nitrilosides are finally used in the treatment of those cancers previously untreated by other methods, the incidence of spontaneous remissions will be found by such critics to have increased beyond reasonable expectations."

I think it is time for the drug cartel to stop trying to climb on the back of the success of laetrile, and stop claiming laetrile’s success in advanced cases given up as hopeless by their doctors is due to "delated therapeutic effects ‘ of their toxic drugs or ‘spontaneous remission". Let us have a look at the final sentence in Dr.Krebs remarks above, concerning the future (his remarks were written about 1974) statistics of spontaneous remissions increasing ‘beyond reasonable expectations’ where terminal patients" are not involved and laetrile has to stand on its own two feet.

In the NCI’s own website, blindly adopted by our Government believe it or not, there appears the following statement:- "…In the 1970’s,laetrile gained popularity as an anticancer agent.By 1978, more than 70,000 individuals in the United States were reported to have been treated with it."(Typically they fail to mention that it was regarded as the answer to cancer and that it was regarded as non-toxic until the drug cartel commenced their lies.) The question I have is twofold: Firstly, if laetrile killed three quarters of patients in the multi- centre trial, why didn.t it kill just as many of the 70,000 treated by 1978? Secondly, because three quarters did not die, many must have survived, enough to debunk the "spontaneous remission" claims.

There is also the world wide success of doctors treating cancer patients electing to have laetrile instead of extremely toxic drugs and their horrible side effects. I would suggest with complete confidence that in the year 2004 any claim by the drug cartel that success with laetrile is due to either ‘spontaneous remissions’ or ‘delayed therapeutic effects’ be ignored.The scientific results are against them. Furthermore, if the spontaneous remissions are so good, why are doctors sending their patients home to die, instead of treating them with laetrile..? (Think about that for a minute!!!)

But then again, as 67% of those having chemotherapy die because of it,and only 2-4% respond to chemotherapy, see Dr. Moss’ quotes later, and the percentage of lives reliably saved by chemotherapy is only 3% - see John Robbins statistics later – I guess it could do with a bit of help.






Steven Ransom, in his book "Great news on cancer in the 21st century (Credence Publications) cites an extract from Dr. Tim O’Shea, writing for "The Doctor Within":

"A German epidemiologist from the Heidelberg and Mannheim Tumour Clinic, Dr. Ulrich Abel, has done a comprehensive review and analysis of every major study and clinical trial of chemotherapy ever done’ His conclusions should be read by anyone who is about to embark on the Chemo Express. To make sure he had reviewed everything ever published on chemotherapy,Abel sent letters to over 350 medical centres around the world asking them to send him anything they had published on the subject. Abel researched thousands of articles: it is unlikely that anyone in the world knows more about chemotherapy than he.

The analysis took him several years, but the results are astounding: Abel found that the overall world wide success rate was ‘appalling’ because there was simply no scientific evidence available anywhere that chemotherapy can ‘extend in any appreciable way the lives of patients suffering from the most common organic cancers.’ Abel emphasises that chemotherapy rarely improves the quality of life. He describes chemotherapy as ‘a scientific wasteland’and states that at least 80 per cent of chemotherapy administered throughout the world is worthless, and is akin to the ‘emperor’s new clothes’-neither doctor nor patient is willing to give up on chemotherapy even though there is no scientific evidence that it works." See O’Shea,Tim, ‘Chemotherapy-an unproven procedure" :

Mr. Ransom notes that "No mainstream media even mentioned this comprehensive study"

Dr.Abel also issued a monograph entitled " Chemotherapy of Advanced Epithelial Cancer " in1990. ( These cancers comprise the most common forms of adenocarcinoma: lung,breast,prostate, colon etc.) After 10 years as a cancer biostatiscian he wrote: " A sober and unprejudiced analysis of the literature has rarely revealed any therapeutic success by the regimens in question in treating advanced epithelial cancer." See


Prof.C. Mathe, Cancer Specialist: , " If I contracted cancer I would never go to a standard cancer treatment centre. Cancer victims who live far from such centres have a chance." See " Scientific Medicine Stymied," Medicines Nouvelles,1989

Dr. Hardin Jones Professor at the Uni. of California, after analysing cancer survival statistics for several decades;"…patients are as well off untreated." This assessment has never been refuted _ Walter Last in "The Ecologist," Vol.2, March/Apr.1998.

Dr.Hardin Jones was a professor of medical physics and physiology who, after spending 30 years researching cancer survival statistics concluded : "My studies have proven conclusively that untreated cancer victims usually live up to four times longer than treated individuals. For a typical type of cancer, people who refused treatment lived for an average of twelve and a half years. Those who accepted surgery and other kinds of treatment lived an average of only three years." Jones, Hardin, "A report on Cancer " delivered to the American Cancer Society’s 11th. Annual Science Writers’ Conference in New Orleans,Louisiana, &th.March, 1969. ( Steven Ransom, "Great News on cancer in the 21st. century " ( Credence Publications. )

Dr.A.Braverman: " Many… oncologists recommend chemotherapy for virtually any tumour, with a hopefulness undiscouraged by almost invariable failure."-in the prestigious British journal " The Lancet,"- "Medical oncology in the ‘90’s," p.901,August1991.

Alan C. Nixon, former President of The American Chemical Society: "…as a chemist trained to interpret data, it is incomprehensible to me that physicians can ignore the clear evidence that chemotherapy does much,much more harm than good." Phillip Day’s book "Cancer why we’re still dying to know the truth." Credence Publications, 1999.

Dr. Dao: "Despite widespread use of chemotherapies, breast cancer mortality has not changed in the last 70 years."-New England Journal of Medicine, March 1975,292,p.707.

Even Dr. Charles Moertel, anti-alternative medicinist, Senior cancer physician of the Mayo Clinic, stated : " Our most effective regimes are frought with risks and side-effects and practical problems; and after this price is paid by all the patients we have treated, only a small fraction are rewarded with a transient period of usually incomplete tumour regressions…"- Griffin, G.Edward, "World Without Cancer ", American Media Publications,1996.

Author John Robbins in his book " Reclaiming our Health: Exploding the Medical Myth and Embracing the Source of True Healing.":

"The Cancer Industry."

Percentage of cancer patients whose lives are reliably saved by chemotherapy - 3%

Evidence to show that, for the majority of cancers, chemotherapy exerts a significant influence on survival or quality of life - none.

Percentage of oncologists who said that if they developed cancer they would not participate in chemotherapy trials due to " the ineffectiveness of chemotherapy and its unacceptable degree of toxicity – 75%

The NCI supports a website . At that website you will find an admission that "…After several years, some patients develop another form of cancer as a result of their treatment with chemotherapy and radiation…" See…

Dr, H. Rosenberg made an extensive study of the carcinogenic effects of chemotherapy.A full list of the referenced papers demonstrating these effects is at - chemo These papers comprised a thesis presented to the Anglo-American Institute of Drugless Therapy in 1990.Steven Ransom in his book "Great News … the 21st. century"(referred to previously) encourages any reader considering chemotherapy to visit The Drug Centre at and research the information on side-effects found there.

The following quotes by Dr. Moss are listed at


Ralph Moss quotes

"Two to 4% of cancers respond to chemotherapy….The bottom line is for a few kinds of cancer chemo is a life extending procedure---Hodgkin's disease, Acute Lymphocytic Leukemia (ALL), Testicular cancer, and Choriocarcinoma."----Ralph Moss, Ph.D. 1995 Author of Questioning Chemotherapy.

"1.7% increase in terms of success rate a year, its nothing. By the time we get to the 24th century we might have effective treatments, Star Trek will be long gone by that time." Ralph Moss.

"If you can shrink the tumour 50% or more for 28 days you have got the FDA's definition of an active drug. That is called a response rate, so you have a response..(but) when you look to see if there is any life prolongation from taking this treatment what you find is all kinds of hocus pocus and song and dance about the disease free survival, and this and that. In the end there is no proof that chemotherapy in the vast majority of cases actually extends life, and this is the GREAT LIE about chemotherapy, that somehow there is a correlation between shrinking a tumour and extending the life of the patient."---Ralph Moss

"A study was done which shows the majority of oncologists who refer patients for chemotherapy for lung cancer would not themselves take chemotherapy for lung cancer. And in fact if the chemotherapy involved cis-platen, something like 75% of them said they wouldn't take it. But what do these people do all day long? They're sending people for cis-platen."--Ralph Moss (

"The great success stories of chemotherapy were always in relatively obscure types of cancer. Childhood leukemia constitutes less than two percent of all cancers and many of chemotherapy's other successes were in diseases so rare that many clinicians had never even seen a single case (Burkitt's lymphoma, choriocarcinoma, etc.)"—Ralph Moss

"Kanematsu Sugiura…..took down lab books and showed me that in fact Laetrile is dramatically effective in stopping the spread of cancer. The animals were genetically programmed to get breast cancer and about 80 - 90% of them normally get spread of the cancer from the breast to the lungs which is a common route in humans, also for how people die of breast cancer, and instead when they gave the animals Laetrile by injection only 10-20% of them got lung metasteses. And these facts were verified by many people, including the pathology department."---Ralph Moss

"It amazes me how much of what passes for knowledge in cancer therapy turns out to be incomplete, inadequate, and anecdotal."---Ralph Moss, Ph.D.

"This (Coley’s toxins) is really an effective treatment and it an OUTRAGEOUS crime of the century that we at MSK were able to cure cancer a 100 years ago that they can't cure today."----Ralph Moss

"The fact is that all of the studies that have been supervised by the National Cancer Institute should now be re-examined by congressional committees to see wether or not there is real corruption in all of them."--Ralph Moss


Phillip Day ( Cancer,,,,) "..a high percentage of those who end up taking metabolic (vitamin ) therapies do so as a last resort after being sent home by their doctors with a hopeless prognosis. That any should survive at all with B17 and its complimentary therapies at this point is a miracle in itself

Edward Griffin reports in his book(World Without Cancer) that on average, long-term survival (over five years ) can be expected in 15% of cases where the cancer has metastasised, if these are treated withB17 as the primary therapy. This figure is in comparison to only 1 case in 1,000 surviving long term for metastatic patients treated with orthodox therapies.(Also see Dr.Binzel’s results above.)

In cases where cancer is first diagnosed, long-term survival for vitamin therapy is gauged at around 80% as compared with 28% for orthodox therapies. Long-term PREVENTION (emphasis mine ) from cancer using a detoxifying high plant dietary and adequate supplies of B17 in the diet, together with a clean non-carcinogenic environment ( there are things we can change and things which we can’t in this regard ) is as close to 100% as you can get. A control group for this prevention study already exists with the Hunzakuts, Abkhasians, the Eskimos, Hopi Indians and similar populations around the world. "

The above figures are very approximate and will vary according to age,sex,cancer site, degree of malignancy, type of treatment etc. However, Drs. Krebs, Richardson, Contreras, Nieper,Sugiura and others have compiled enough data to give orthodox treatments every conceivable advantage in the reckoning. Nevertheless, B17 still demonstrates benefits for survivability and recovery far above those attained with orthodox therapies. The data for nutrition as a highly effective treatment for cancer is simply too impressive to brush aside. As Dr. Binzel states in his book "My biggest surprise came at the end of my third year. At that time I sat down and went through all of the records of all of the patients that I had on this nutritional program.To my amazement, I found that not one single one of the patients that I had seen with primary cancer had developed metastatic disease. With " orthodox " treatment, by this time, most of them should have. This was when I knew I had something."




Did you know that parents who choose complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) treatments for their children can be forced to give them toxic chemotherapy instead? In the US, that is the law of the land. Michael and Raphaela Horwin discovered this, to their amazement, when their two-year-old son Alexander developed a deadly brain tumor. After researching various treatment options, they wanted to take him to be treated by Stanislaw Burzynski, MD, PhD, a physician in Texas. Dr Burzynski uses non-toxic treatments that are being studied in a number of clinical trials.

But the Horwins' conventional doctors, backed by the full power of the state, forced them to agree to chemotherapy for their child. If the parents had not consented, Alexander could have been taken from them by force. Yet the chemo in question was neither proven nor effective, and the child died.

If you are ready and willing to be thoroughly outraged, read the article, "FDA Forces Fatal Chemo on Kids," at




Recently, the New York Times ran one of the most devastating Op-Ed pieces on cancer I have ever read. It was called "False Hope in a Bottle," and was written by Tom Nesi. It is a powerful critique of the way that advanced cancer is treated in academic medicine. It is particularly critical of the new class of "targeted" anti-cancer drugs being developed by such companies as AstraZeneca, ImClone and Bristol-Myers Squibb.

The article concerns the treatment Mr. Nesi’s wife, Susan, received for her brain cancer. In the later stages of her illness, she received the recently approved drug Iressa. Nesi notes that similar drugs such as Erbitux and Avastin are now speeding through the FDA approval process.

"It is hard to argue against making new cancer drugs available to the desperately ill," he writes. "Certainly, these drugs are a step in the right direction in the fight against the disease." He believes that these drugs do extend life by a few months. But he continues: "I think we need to ask ourselves whether offering terminal patients limited hope of a few more months is really beneficial. The question is not whether days are extended, but in what condition the patient lives and at what emotional and financial cost."

Oncologists often talk in dry-as-dust terms about "tumor shrinkages," "responses" and the other arcane indicators of benefit. But Nesi notes, ironically, that "according to the medical profession, the experimental treatment had worked." Susan lived almost three months longer than the average patient with glioblastoma.

"Somewhere in some computer database," he adds, "Susan’s experimental regimen will be counted a success. She was a 'responder.’ And therein lies the terrible truth behind the approval of 'miracle drugs’ on the basis of 'tumor shrinkage’ or 'extended days.’ Susan's life was extended. But at what cost?" he asks.

It is easy to calculate the financial cost. In Susan Nesi’s case it added up to at least $200,000 for a year-and-a-half of treatment. "During those final months, Nesi wrote, "we incurred expenses for four ambulance trips, two weeks in a critical care center, a full-time home health-care aide, a feeding tube and electronic monitor, home hospital equipment, occupational therapists, social workers and medication." He had to hire someone just to handle all the bills.

"I still hear the words of my wife's surgeon after her disastrous third surgery," said Nesi: " 'We have saved your wife's life. . . . We have given you the ability to spend more quality time with your loved one.’ And the words she scribbled on a notepad two weeks later: 'depressed . . . no more . . . please.' "

The article is a cry from the heart for cancer doctors to pause in their headlong pursuit of largely meaningless goals, such as transient and partial tumor shrinkages. One hopes that the executives of the companies that produce these drugs will open their minds and hearts, along with their morning papers, and pay special attention to Mr. Nesi’s appeal. In this case, they might. For Tom Nesi, ironically, is the former director of public affairs at Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Nesi, Tom. False hope in a bottle [op-ed], New York Times, 06/05/03:

8y.o. Joey Hofbauer

The full story ofJoey is told in Chapter 12 of Dr.Binzel’s "Alive and Well," referenced above.

In brief, Joey Hofbauer was diagnosed with Hodgkins Disease, a form of cancer of the lymph nodes. .His doctors said the only treatment was chemotherapy.

When the doctors found out that his parents preferred alternative therapy, and had taken Joer to Jamaica for treatment, they became irate. Less than 24 hours after he returned to the U.S. a "sheriff and several deputies literally broke down the door of the Hofbauer home and kidnapped Joey. They took him to a hospital where, according to the Saratoga Countu Department of Social Services, he would receive chemotherapy whether the parents approved or not. .." (THE ENFORCERS HAVE SPOKEN!! )

A court case ensued, at the end of which the Judge ruled that Joey should be returned to his parents and that he could continue to receive nutritional treatment.The Judge stated that ( NUTRITIONAL THERAPY HAS A PLACE IN OUR SOCIETY.") The State Health Department was "very disappointed."


( As reported in Steve Ransom’s book "Great News on Cancer…"referred to previously ) I have a copy of the video cassette of the TV interview on Channel 9’s " A Current Affair’.

In november,2001, 5 y.o. Laura Boomsma was diagnosed with a large Wilms’ tumour on her right kidney. She underwent pre-operative chemotherapy in december which saw her hair fall out. She became very sick and stopped eating. During this period,Laura’s father attended a Phillip Day Cancer Seminar in Brisbane and learned that there were considerable dangers to human health with certain conventional cancer treatments.Laura’s parents decided to stop all chemotherapy treatment immediately and Laura began a full nutritional program, including Vitamin B17. After about one month of B17 treatment, Laura was feeling much better and a scan confirmed that Laura’s tumour had shrunk right down in size. In January, the hospital surgically removed the tumour and insisted on 12 sessions of post-operative chemotherapy. Laura’s parents objected and said they wanted to seek alternative treatment overseas. The hospital,believing them to be ‘unfit’ parents, sought legal means to take Laura from them and forcibly medicate her with chemotherapy. Laura’s father said he would go to jail before the authorities took Laura from them. The Campaign for Truth in Medicine became involved.

In conjunction with the Boomsma’s legal team, CTM assisted in drawing up the affidavits that would be presented in court. The sheer weight of evidence contained in the affidavits against chemotherapy was enough to force the hospital to back down before the case was heard in the Queensland Supreme Court, setting a world precedent.

Free to leave Australia without having their passports seized, Laura and her father duly travelled to the UK where Laura received non-toxic immune-boosting treatments for her condition. At the time of writing, Laura is doing very well. Said father Aaron Boomsma: ‘‘ I am just so grateful to Phillip and the mission at Credence. The change in Laura since beginning the alternative treatment has been incredible.’

The above personal accounts represent only a small percentage of the B17 testimonies from around the world that attest to the life-saving benefits of this simple treatment, when coupled with suitable dietary changes. And it’s a privilege to be able to say that, as far as the treatment of cancer is concerned, Vitamin B17 nutritional therapy is good news for the 21st. century…"

And if the above haven’t grabbed your attenion, try this "Coercive Medicine"


Coercive Medicine

Lynn M. Paltrow,
March 19, 2004

Viewed on March 25, 2004

An arrest in Utah last week of a 28-year-old woman who allegedly committed murder by refusing to undergo a C-section represents a shocking abuse of state authority and a dangerous disregard for medical ethics.

In this case, prosecutors claim that Melissa Rowland -- a woman pregnant with twins -- rejected the advice of her physicians to have a caesarean section, allegedly resulting in the stillbirth of one of the twins. According to the law, however, pregnant women -- like other Americans -- have the right to decide whether or not to undergo surgery. The American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) as well as other leading medical groups similarly conclude that the final decision must be the woman's:

Once a patient has been informed of the material risks and benefits involved with a treatment, test or procedure, that patient has the right to exercise full autonomy in deciding whether to undergo the treatment, test, or procedure or whether to make a choice among a variety of treatments, tests, or procedures. In the exercise of that autonomy, the informed patient also has the right to refuse to undergo any of these treatments, tests or procedures. . . . Performing an operative procedure on a patient without the patient's permission can constitute 'battery' under common law. In most circumstances, this is a criminal act. . . . Such a refusal [of consent] may be based on religious beliefs, personal preference or comfort. (ACOG. Informed refusal. Committee Opinion No 237, June 2000.)

These legal and medical ethical principles make sense for both women and children. Doctors are not infallible and their advice is just that, advice. In addition to the consensus of medical organizations, courts, too, have long recognized a patient's right to make health care decisions free from governmental intrusion. However, in the case of a pregnant woman refusing potentially beneficial medical treatment for the fetus, the principle has been too easily set aside, and for dubious reasons.

Not an Isolated Case

For example, earlier this year a woman in Pennsylvania went to a hospital ready to deliver her seventh child. For reasons that remain far from clear, the hospital decided she needed a C-section and when she refused, they went to court. They asked for and won an order giving the hospital custody of the fetus before, during and after delivery and the right to take custody of the pregnant woman and force her to undergo the surgery. She and her husband fled the hospital and delivered a perfectly health baby without surgery.

Similar cases abound. In one Georgia case, doctors got a court order claiming that without a C-section a baby had a 99 percent chance of dying and the woman a 50 percent chance of dying. The court granted the order, the woman fled and delivered a healthy baby vaginally. Neither women nor children are protected by a system that makes women flee from hospitals or subjects them to unnecessary surgery.

Angela Carder was not as lucky. This case occurred in the early 1990s and garnered national attention. After the 25-weeks pregnant Carder became critically ill with cancer, she, her family and attending physicians agreed to focus on prolonging her young life for as long as possible. The hospital, however, sought a court order forcing her to have a C-section. Despite testimony that the surgery could kill her, the court concluded that the fetus had a right to life and ordered her to be cut open against her will. The surgery was performed: The fetus died within two hours and Angela died within two days with the C-section listed as a contributing factor. No one suggested arresting the doctor or hospital officials for murder. The life and death of Angela Carder focused national attention on the propriety of using courts to determine medical treatment for pregnant patients and inspired a chorus of diverse voices to condemn coercive medical treatment.

Ayesha Madyun survived. She was forced to have a C-section based on the claim that she had been in labor too long and that her baby was at risk of dying from an infection. Her request to be allowed to wait longer before having the surgery so she could try natural delivery was portrayed to the court as an irrational religious objection to surgery. The court granted the order and after Madyun had been forcibly cut open they found that there was in fact no infection.

The ability to get a court order or threaten pregnant women with arrest has many negative consequences beyond denying pregnant women rights and performing unnecessary surgery that poses health risks to both the pregnant woman and fetus. In an Illinois case, doctors sought a court order for a forced C-section claiming the pregnant woman and her husband held irrational religious beliefs opposing all surgery. Instead of spending time with the patient, the doctors ran to the court. The court refused the order, the baby was delivered naturally, and it turned out that if the doctors had spent the time communicating with the patient and her family rather than judging them and rushing to court, they would have learned that it was misunderstanding, not an absolute objection to surgery, that made it appear that this couple was refusing a recommended (but unnecessary) C-section.

Strategy of Distraction

Responding to a chorus of opposition to the arrest, the press and the prosecution are now depicting Melissa Rowland as irrational because they claim she suffered from mental illness, and immoral because she used drugs. In addition to the serious questions these comments raise about violations of patient's rights to medical privacy, it is clear that all adults -- even those with mental disabilities -- have a right to informed consent. If mental illness had truly been an issue, resorting to civil competency procedures, not the criminal law, was the proper thing to do. As for the allegations of drug use, Utah has as a matter of statutory law chosen to deal with issue of pregnancy and drug use through the public health and child welfare systems, not the criminal law. This decision comports with 48 other states and the unanimous recommendations of leading medical and child advocacy groups.

Today both the law and medicine agree that coerced medical interventions on pregnant women are an abuse of medical and state authority and that while pregnant women do not always make the right decision, in America, it is the person on whom the surgery is to be performed who gets to decide. In spite of this, Utah prosecutors apparently think that a pregnant woman who exercises her constitutional and common-law right to refuse medical advice can be arrested for murder. This is not only a clear misuse of the law, it is dangerous to children and fundamentally dehumanizing to pregnant women and their families.

Lynn M. Paltrow is the executive director of National Advocates for Pregnant Women.


The web site reference:


Cancer Boy's Parents Win 'Amputation' Fight
by Michel Leidig

German Court Rules against social services in favour of couple who want to use alternative therapy to treat their son's disease

A couple who lost custody of their young son to social services after insisting that his bone cancer was treated using alternative medicine last week won a lengthy legal battle to get him back.

Dominik Feld, 9, became a cause celebre in Germany after his parents, Josef and Anke, defied a leading oncologist's advice that their son's right leg should be amputated if they wanted to save his life and stop the disease spreading.

When the specialist, Dr Heribert Jurgens, also warned that Dominik had a less than one-in-five chance of survival with chemotherapy, the Felds decided to pursue "cell therapy" treatment instead, involving high doses of vitamins and minerals.

Perturbed, Dr Jurgens tipped off officials from Germany's social services, who decided that the Felds were not acting in Dominik's best interests. In November 2003, they obtained a court order to remove the boy from his parents' custody. The order prompted a heated debate in Germany over parental rights, particularly as Dominik's cancer seemed to improve while he was receiving the cell therapy treatment.

While the Felds, from Siegen in central Germany, appealed against the decision, protesters staged rallies outside the high court in Koblenz each time a hearing was set. A family petition attracted more than 30,000 signatures. Donations from supporters helped to fund their appeal and temporary injunctions brought by the Felds to ensure that the cell therapy continued.

During the five-month legal tussle, which culminated in last week's victory in the high court, Dominik remained in hospital, officially in the care of social services. The amputation was postponed.

Last week Mrs Feld, 38, told The Sunday Telegraph: "We are delighted - but the best gift of all will be when Dominik returns to full health. We are not against conventional medicine, nor in favour of unproven alternative medicine, but when there are medically proven alternatives from qualified professionals, we believe it is the right and duty of parents to choose what they want for their child," she said. "The conventional treatment we were offered had a less than 20 per cent chance of success and as a result we had no alternative but to look for something that would give our son a better chance of survival."

Mr Feld, 41, a mechanical engineer, said: "The whole family is delighted about the court decision. Dominik had his ninth birthday on Monday and this was the best birthday and Easter present we could hope for. We have had the catheters removed that were used for chemotherapy this week. We won't need them any more, although the cell therapy is continuing."

The Felds, who also have four daughters aged five to 17, realised that Dominik was ill in September 2002. "The bottom fell out of our world," said Mrs Feld. He had been playing football and fell badly and hurt his leg. "When we took him to the hospital they thought it was broken and put his leg in a cast. He was in a lot of pain and when he was examined in more detail they discovered the cancer."

Dr Jurgens, a specialist at Munster University Hospital, claimed that the osteosarcoma in Dominik's right leg was too advanced for treatment to be worthwhile, and insisted that only amputation would save his life. Dr Jurgens also said that the cancer had spread to his lungs and that strong doses of chemotherapy were necessary.

The Felds agreed to the chemotherapy but watched their son grow progressively weaker and his weight fall to just 35lb. Seeking a second opinion, they heard about a method pioneered by Dr Matthew Rath, an alternative health "guru" who is a qualified doctor but prefers to promote natural cures for his patients. In this treatment, cancerous tissues could be removed from bone marrow - avoiding the need for amputation - and the cell therapy substituted for chemotherapy.

Mrs Feld said that they were just in time to stop the amputation. "We looked everywhere for an alternative and it was only at the last minute, with hours to go before the operation, that we were told a hospital in Munich believed that they could operate to remove the tumour and save the leg," she said. "That was in December 2002. We allowed him to continue on chemotherapy but stopped it in May last year. After allowing him to regain his strength, we started him on the cell therapy in June."

The Felds later received a letter from social services warning them that Munster University felt that Dominik was not being treated properly. Their right to care for their son was subsequently removed.

Dr Rath who helped the Felds with their "Save Dominik" campaign, maintains that under his care the boy's condition has improved.

"The X-ray CT (computed tomography) images of Dominik's lungs speak for themselves," Dr Rath said. "The lung metastases present one year ago have completely vanished. It is, therefore, clear that cancer is curable by natural means."

He said he had no doubt that Dominik would beat his cancer if his parents agreed to their son continuing the cell therapy.

Dr Jurgens, however, has served Dr Rath with a court order barring him from calling him a "drug industry lackey" and dismissed Dr Rath's claims that Dominik's health has improved.

"The truth of the matter is that a patient appears to be doing better when in fact the cancer is spreading. It is simply that the symptoms appear to have ameliorated somewhat," he said. "But that does not change the long-term prognosis, nor does it mean that therapy ought to be set aside."

The family remains optimistic. Dominik says he feels better when treated with cell therapy and wants to carry on with it. His parents point out that the cancer removed from Dominik's leg during surgery has not returned.

"We are not capable of seeing the future, but we are very optimistic," said Mr Feld.

"There are no traces of the cancer in his lungs and although there are still cancer cells in his blood, they are no longer active. From now on, it's just a question of waiting - and of hope."
The Sunday Telegraph, 11th April 2004


Credibility? What Credibility ? They Shot Themselves in the Foot.

In the 1950’s and 1970’s the Drug Barons could get away with their lies and deceptions. Today the credibility of the drug cartel has been shot to pieces because of their own stupidity. They dug their own grave when they persisted with their outright lies and blatant deceptions, hoping that they would be able to produce a treatment using toxic drugs.They failed. It was never going to happen because our immune system fights and fights to rid our system of the highly toxic drugs used. And, because they blindly accept what the Drug Cartel tells them, our Government, The TGA and Q’ld. Health find themselves in the same hole.

This is the year 2004, not 1994. That amazing mine of information, the internet has now been with us for some years. It gives us access to the sources of, and presents us with hard, solid scientific evidence from world renowned scientists in several fields, and scientific journals, as far back as 1845 that amygdalin/laetrile/vit.B17 is a non-toxic extremely successful pain reducing treatment for cancer that exposes chemotherapy for the toxic sham it is. Dr. Binzel states in his "Alive and Well" that those of his patients who died because their cancer was beyond any hope of cure, passed away peacefully in their own home because of the analgesic action of Vit. B17. His actual words are, "Some of the most beautiful letters that I have received have come from the relatives of patients who have died. They described how wonderful it was that their mother (or sister or brother or wife) had been free of pain and had been able to die comfortably at home rather than in a hospital."

Today, it is not possible to accept any claim whatsoever made by the Drug Cartel because of engineered (doctored) results, their lies on billboards, in lectures and other avenues that Vit. B17 is toxic, their lies that amygdalin/laetrile has not been tested on animals, the lies that Dr. Krebs (and others) claims regarding the chemical interactions on Vit.B17, beta-glucosidases, hydrogen cyanide and rhodanese are false, their false statistics concerning the decrease (? Increase) in the incidence of cancer. Even Dr. Dean Burk, a co-founder of and once head of, the NCI has published proof of some of these lies. (See How They Lie, See How They Lie Above)

In fact, they have lied so much, that Edwin Griffin in his book "World Without Cancer" was concerned enough to state:- "Every study had been tarnished with the same kind of scientific ineptitude, bias, and outright deception as found in the 1953 MacDonald/Garland 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 that they weren’t trying to see if Laetrile was effective, but merely to determine how much of it was required to kill the patient."

How do companies manage to fund research that is favourable to them? In a recent issue of The British Medical Journal, it is stated that "two tireless campaigners for the better use of scientific evidence in medicine, " Dave Sackett and Andy Oxman, founded a spoof company called HARLOT- which stands for How to Achieve positive Results without actually Lying to Overcome the Truth..Please read it. Richard Smith, the editor of the BMJ wrote the article, aptly headed " Foregone Conclusions "in the British Guardian Unlimited on the14 January,2004. His final paragraph reads- "The Harlot article was written to amuse, but is as deadly as anything else published in the BMJ in the past10 years. The public is being regularly deceived and exploited " (Emphasis mine.) The article will open your eyes on deception. See:-,11381,1122721,00.html

In addition, as I have pointed out above, they have lied in Courts of law and even committed perjury.Even their statistics on ‘successes’ are blatant misrepresentation.Isn’t it more to the point that the Drug Cartel should be forced to publish honest results instead of doctored results? But then they wouldn’t know what honest meant.

And they are still lying. Please go to Ralph W. Moss, Ph.D. Weekly Cancer Decisions Newsletter #128 of 04/11/04 for full details. Highly misleading information once more from the Enforcers, as Dr. Moss reports.The FDA, NCI, our TGA and Q’ld Health are certainly not going to win any humanitarian award or even be Mentioned in Dispatches. Perhaps I shouldn’t have used the word "dispatches", as, in another context, it could rightly be said that these enforcers have dispatched many cancer sufferers to an early grave. A grave injustice, so to speak.

And because it is 2004,we are all well aware that honest, caring, sincere medical practitioners world-wide are successfully treating thousands upon thousands of cancer sufferers every day of the year, while we in Oz. are being allowed to die before our time.It is without doubt a crime against humanity.Two doctors have already gone public and accused the Drug Cartel and the US Government of murder and genocide.

Oops! Make that three. The following just arrived from Dr.Moss :


Government Reform and Oversight Committee

February 12, 1998

Dr. Lyle Cheadle and his daughter Janet

Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Committee, my name is Dr. Lyle E. Cheadle, Ph.D. This is my daughter Janet Isabella Cheadle. She is seven years old and she has been to Hell and back. She has been diagnosed as a Stage IV Neuroblastoma cancer patient. Over a period of 17 months beginning on February 28, 1996 she has suffered through 10 months of very aggressive chemotherapy, 6 days of ablation chemotherapy, 3 days of total body radiation therapy. Twice each day. And then a very gruesome bone marrow transplant resulting in the doctors telling us on February 17 and 18, 1997 that our daughter had only hours to live. With God's will, many prayers and tears the good lord brought her back from the brink of death.

She was discharged, in remission only to incur 3 life threatening secondary infections. She has been in relatively good health since August 1997. That may sound like good news, but this disease has 93% rate of recurrence which results in death. Most medical journals do not give survival rates after 2 years. They know what happens.

After seeing what the damage standard protocols have wreaked on our daughter Janet we began research for alternative treatment. We came across the Burznynski Clinic in Houston, Texas. WE contacted the clinic and we were told the Oncology Division of the Food and Drug Administration had to approve the treatment. On September 15, 1997, I wrote a letter to Mr. Paul Zimmerman, the Consumer Safety officer requesting that my daughter be allowed treatment at the Burzynski Clinic. While awaiting an answer we gathered all the medical records on Janet and sent them to the Burzynski clinic for evaluation.

After waiting approximately three weeks for an answer from Mr. Zimmerman, I called his number and via voice mail asked if he had any intentions of responding to my letter as a result of my phone call. JoAnn Minor called me and said we have to wait for Dr. Burzynski's treatment protocol before we can do anything. The protocol package was sent to the FDA via fax. It was returned to the Doctor's office, disapproved in less than five hours. The Doctor's office called and said the FDA had disapproved the protocol and would not allow the Doctor to treat Janet prophylactically. I was shocked by this response from the FDA.

The same evening I tracked down Mr. Zimmerman at his home phone and called him. He could not recall reading the letter It amazes me that I wrote the letter and sent it express mail directly to him. He could not recall reading the letter. He seemed confused several days before my call. I had Dr. Reginald Moore, MD call MR.. Zimmerman. He also seemed to be confused when Dr. Moore called.

The morning after I called Mr. Zimmerman at this home I received a call from Mr. David Banks, also from the FDA. I cried and begged both of these men to at least give my daughter a fighting chance at life. My pleas fell on deaf ears. Mr. Banks sent me a write-up apparently from the Journal of the American Medical Association by a Dr. Green. It was dated 1992 I recall. It was a smear of the treatment I was seeking and the Doctor who invented it.

I called Mr. Banks back He told me to cal a Dr. Blaney at the Texas Children's Cancer Center. I was referred to a Dr. Stacey Berg. WE discussed janet's cancer. Dr. Berg stated that a patient in remission was not eligible to participate in the clinical trial for obvious reasons -- nothing to measure. I spoke of the Burzynski clinic. Dr. Berg stated she was familiar with the clinic. She agreed Janet had nothing to lose and everything to gain. She could not understand the logic behind the FDA's decision to refuse Janet treatment in view of the very, very poor prognosis of janet by 3 highly qualified oncologists.

I wrote 4 letters to the President, a letter to the First Lady, every member of the Texas Delegation to Congress. Unfortunately, only Senators Phil Gramm, Kay Bailey Hutchison, and Representative Chet Edwards responded. The FDA responded to Phil Gramm. They have not responded to Senator Hutchison because she has sent 3 letters to me apologizing for the delay. I have received nothing back from Representative Chet Edwards except a letter telling me that he can not change a policy, procedure or regulation of a government agency. The FDA tells me their hands are tied by the laws the Congress has passed. I just wonder who is in charge?

The FDA's reasons for not approving the treatment I seek for Janet are that it is inherently dangerous or there is no evidence the treatment would work. How in God's name do they know whether it works or not if we don't try? When I asked the FDA why they say the treatment is dangerous, they tell me that to reveal that information would violate the Doctor's proprietary rights. I wrote a letter to the doctor asking him to refute the FDA's statement which he did in a letter dated December 12, 1997 which is attached to my testimony.

Mr. Chairman, it appears to me that the only patients allowed to be treated by this Doctor are the terminally ill. What chance does any treatment process have which has only basket cases to work with? This gives the FDA amply opportunity to say "see, we told you it wouldn't work."

Mr. Chairman, my family feels like trapped rats. We do not know from day to day if this cancer is going to return with a vengeance and kill our child, but we know that there is a 93% chance it will do so. We feel like screaming and lashing out at those who would sit and pass a death sentence on our daughter. Mr. Chairman, what the FDA is doing is tantamount to murder - that is the only word that I can come up with to describe their actions.

The FDA is the most arrogant agency of government I have ever encountered. They are drunk with power over the life or death of cancer patients. They are vindictive and spiteful of anyone that does not adhere to their perceived norms. Mr. Chairman, we have had a long war with cancer. The FDA needs to get on board to help conquer this terrible disease that kills 600,000 Americans every year. They apparently despise individual researchers when they should be acting in concert with them. They are a thorn in the side of finding a cure for cancer why should I have to fight the FDA to save my child? They should be helping me not hindering me.

We wonder why our government is locking themselves behind secure doors, metal detectors, armed guards, etc. We have forgotten that our government is of the people, for the people. We do not need bureaucrats setting up their little kingdoms in our government agencies.

I also strongly feel that the GAO needs to conduct an exhaustive audit of the FDA to find out if they are working for the American taxpayers and not the big pharmaceutical companies.

Article on First Day of Hearings

Testimony of 2/12/98

Testimony of 2/4/98

Moss's Editorial on Hearings

Return to Home

The website is



How many more positive results are required? None!! Apart from Dr,Rath’s condemnation of the Drug Cartel with regard to alternative medicines, there are 159 years of positive results commencing in 1845 when T. Inosmetzeff, a professor at the Imperial University in Moscow treated two patients with amygdalin (Vit B17 from bitter almonds.)The results were published in two scientific journals. Gazette Medicale de Paris, 1845,13: 577-582. And Journal Chirurgie und Augenheikunde, 1846, 35: 7-28.

A young male cancer patient of 20 received approximately 46,000mg. of amygdalin over a period of 3 months, and was still alive 3 years later. A woman of 48, with extensive metastases from a primary right ovarian tumour, received varying amounts of amygdalin over a period of years and had survived 11 years at the time of the report. No sustained pharmacological harm was seen with these patients (J. South "Laetrile – The Answer To Cancer", )

It is almost beyond belief that, with all the indisputable scientific proof that is available simply for the reading , our government is hiding behind the last gasp effort of the drug cartel that doctors having success with amygdalin/laetrile/vit.B17 should be publishing their results in peer journals. They don’t have to.There is already proof in abundance in Dr.Krebs’results, Dr.Binzel’s, Dr.Manner’s, Dr.Morrones, Dr.Navarro’s, Dr.Guidetti’s, Dr.Contreras’, Dr. Richardson’s, Dr. Sugiatura’s etc.,etc.,etc.You can read case histories, results of treatment, clinical trials etc. of some or the doctors just mentioned at and be introduced to another Quack Quack. Phillip Day had smoke coming out of his ears over this "idiot."

Isn’t it more to the point that the drug cartel should be forced to publish honest results? I wonder how many cancer sufferers who have died because of chemotherapy have had their death attributed to pneunmonia or another disease? In WW2 Nazi Germany forced people in concentration camps to undergo experiments with toxic drugs. It is no different in Australia today where we are forced to take extremely toxic drugs because we are denied our God-given basic right of informed consent. This in itself is a breach of the UN’s Charter of Human Rights. And if our P.M. thinks otherwise I’d like to hear his reasons. Arthur C. Brown, in his consultant’s report on "Alternative Cancer Treatments and Therapies, 2001-2004, available at states in his final paragraph: "We strongly believe the alarming rise in cancer today requires all the treatment options be explored and made available to citizens and doctors alike.The right to freedom of choice in medical matters for doctors and patients is as important as any freedom in our constitution. Certain states in the USA (Georgia, Nevada, Arizona, Alaska,etc. ) are now taking action independent of the federal government to allow medical doctors freedom to use alternative treatments."

The Prime Minister and his enforcer theTGA would do well to heed the warning. If they don’t we are going to have a cancer epidemic upon us ,if it hasn’t started already. In his preface to his " Cancer: Nature, Cause and Cure," Paris, 1957, Dr.Alexander Berglas stated: "Civilisation is, in terms of cancer, a juggernaut that cannot be stopped…It is the nature and essence of industrial civilisation to be toxic in every sense…We are faced with the grim prospect that the advance of cancer and of civilisation parellel each other" How correct he was is evidenced by the WHO’s world wide survey mentioned at the very beginning of this website. It is extremely likely that by 2020 three out of four or five of the population will have cancer. Unless something is done, you, your brother, your sister, your mother,your father could succumb to cancer.


And the government is also forcing this upon us, as we are only allowed to have very toxic drugs, all of which are carcinogenic in themselves.There are approximately 120 alternative treatments listed in Dr. Ralph Moss’ "Cancer Therapy "…See his - newsletter #76 of 03/07/03, which contains the following statement from Dr. Horrobin who himself has cancer:-" Despite huge expenditures,success has eluded us. The few outstanding successes in rare cancers cannot hide the overall failure.





The following is from my letter to Q’ld. Health 0f 7/7/03:

Glen Warner MD stated, .."We have a multi-billion dollar industry THAT IS KILLING PEOPLE RIGHT AND LEFT, JUST FOR FINANCIAL GAIN. Its idea of research is to see whether 2 doses of this poison are better than 3 doses of that poison (Cancer Quotes - The Cancer Page:"

The side effects of chemo and radiation are extensive. They include:-

a. The killing of many beneficial cells, as many chemo drugs are poisons designed to target cells that multiply most rapidly.

b. Killing the whole body by degrees as a result of repeated chemo and radiation treatments.

c. Destruction of the immune system, thus preventing the body from fighting other illnesses. The result, some 67% of patients dying from cancer treatment do so because the immune system fails, resulting from the aggressive toxic nature of the drugs.

d. Dizziness, skin discolouration, sensory loss, audio-visual impairment, nausea, diarrhoea, loss of hair, loss of appetite, malnutrition, loss of sex drive, loss of white blood cells, permanent organ damage, organ failure, internal bleeding, tissue loss, cardiovascular leakage from artery deterioration. (See The Home of Orthomolecular Oncology.- )

e. Difficulty in breathing, skin rash or swelling, fever or chills, infection, unusual bleeding or bruising, abdominal or stomach cramps, loss of movement, loss of muscle co-ordination, loss of zest to live, spasms, fits, seizures and convulsions. There is a further list on the internet the reference for which I can give you if you want it.

f. Short life span - average only 3 years. (Dr. Hardin Jones, 30 years researching cancer survival statistics. Reference available if required.

g. Cancer. After several years, some patients develop another form of cancer as a result of their treatment with chemo and radiation. Clinical trials are ongoing to determine if lower doses can be used. http: reference is available.

h. It doesn't work. There is no scientific evidence that chemo works.


Since that date further information has come to hand, in particular an abridged

Article, Chemo (Toxico ) Therapy by Karl Loren forwarded by Phillip Day’s CTM E-club and available at - chemo.htm

Please read it. It not only lists the side effects of chemo. but also tells how cure statistics etc. are being manipulated. It comprises 12 pages. The opening paragraphs are as follows:-

The introduction of cytotoxic (chemo(toxico)therapy) chemical drugs into the (classic) therapeutic arsenal took place quite recently and may be traced back to the discovery, after World War II, of the anti-tumour effect of nitrogen mustard {methyl-bis (chloorethylamine), (NSC, 762, CIBA, BOOTS}. The aim of these (toxico)chemotherapeutic drugs was, and still is, to kill cancer cells left in tumours that can only partly, or not at all, be operated and/or irradiated; cancer cells left after surgical intervention; or those arrived in the bloodstreams. The absolute elimination of cancer cells remains the ultimate goal of chemo(toxico)therapy. According to the academic-medicine point of view, complete remission can only be realized if cancer cells are removed or killed. Consequently, the purpose is to eliminate a maximum number of cancer cells, even if this means the inevitable killing of a number of healthy cells. The chemo(toxico)therapeutic drugs (known so far) are not selective and destroy both sound and malignant cells. Therefore, they are cytotoxic (cell toxic) rather than tumour toxic. Throughout this work, we will contradict the assumption that cancer (disease) will be destroyed (the so-called regeneration ad integrum). As a matter of fact, more and more classic cancer researchers now start to dispute the belief in the efficiency of cancer cell destruction as the optimal way of curing cancer (12).

Whilst compiling this survey our major concern was to give the reader the clearest view possible of what is being concealed by the medical establishment. Therefore we have searched and reflected on the medical literature worldwide so that the reader is aware that the bibliographic examples we have selected represent merely the tip of a massive iceberg of what is being written in medical circles about chemo(toxico) therapeutics. The contents of these articles is of less importance to the reader as, in the majority of cases, the titles are more then self-explanatory.

The enumeration is far from complete and covers in the main short periods of time within the years mentioned. The proportion of medical articles on this subject that we have quoted is infinitesimally small and the anthology that is currently being presented is only a small fraction of the literature about the harmful side-effects of the 'remedies', compared to what has been published on the subject.

It is enough to envisage the cancer-producing effects of these drugs to urge the utmost caution, not to say suspicion, about this deadly therapeutic arsenal and those doctors who stubbornly promote it.

"There is only one disease of which doctors can always cure us: our credulity with respect to them" (J. Petit-Senn)…….. ‘

The side effects are listed under 12 headings, underneath which are given the scientific journals in which these side effects were reported and the applicable country involved.Please note that the medical articles reported are "infinititesimally small……(and only )…a small fraction of the literature about the harmful side effects…" The 12th heading has 3.5 pages of scientific references alone. The 12 headings are: (1) Digestive upsets (nausea,vomiting,anorexia,stomatitis,diarrhoea,etc.) (2) Affections of the skin and mucous membrane (all sorts of affections, nail damage,alopecia,etc.) (3) Haematopoietic alteration (immuno-depression,blood composition alteration etc. ) (4) Affection of the reproductive organs ( sterility, impotence, azoospermia, amenorrhea, gynecomastia,etc.) (5) Renal and liver damage. (6) Impairment of the osseous (skeletal ) system (7) Pulmonary diseases (8) Mutagenic (cancer-causing ) changes. (9) Cancer-producing side-effects (10 ) Impairment of the central nervous system (11) Cardiotoxicity (12) Miscellania.




Vitamin B17 side effects include increased appetite, weight gain, lowered blood pressure, increased haemoglobin and red blood cell count, elimination or sharp reduction of pain without narcotics, builds up body's resistance to other diseases, is a natural substance found in foods and is compatible with human biological experience, destroys cancer cells and nourishes non-cancer cells.

There is one side effect from Laetrile, viz:- "elimination or sharp reduction of pain without narcotics, " a result which is reported by all doctors using Laetrile/amygdalin/vit.B17, upon which I wish to comment.

The TGA will, in certain circumstances (pain reduction ) under the Special Access Scheme (SAS ) allow the importation of Laetrile for cancer sufferers provided your doctor will complete and sign the necessary form:. Category A patients

The Category A form states…." Category A patients are defined in the Therapeutic

Goods Regulations,1991as "persons who are seriously ill with a condition from which death is likely to occur within a matter of months, or from which premature death is reasonably likely to occur in the absence of early treatment. " Under s31A (2) of the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 (the Act) the TGA may seek clarification of the Category A classification of patients. In addition, under s61(3A) of the Act the TGA may release details of inappropriate supply and/or use of unapproved medicines and medical devices to State and Territory authorities…." Inappropriate in their opinion, of course, not the doctors .

These patients can receive " unapproved goods " without the prior approval of the TGA, but the doctor must notify the TGA within 28 days of the treatment, using the Category A form. Category B patients:- Information required by the TGA for Cat.B patients before approval is given for unapproved goods includes:_ " Clinical justification An outline of the seriousness of the patient’s condition, details of past treatment and, if other approved treatments are available, justification for the use of the unapproved product in preference to those treatments." (my emphasis.)

Now you tell me how is a doctor going to justify something that is already on the unapproved list! Not b****y likely is it? I wish you luck!

It is as plain as a boil on their er nose that the TGA keeps a very tight rein on these applications, not all of which are approved they tell me. Why? What have they got against the poor little apricot and almond seeds when chemotherapy is hundreds of times more toxic? No problem getting the latter-open slather actually. Well, as I see it, cancer sufferers are allowed vitB17 treatment after being declared terminally ill where death,--and I quote—"….is reasonably likely to occur within a matter of months…." They are making sure as far as possible that the patient has one foot in the pine box , and the other half way in. I mean if the treatment with Laetrile is successful the drug cartel is then in the position of having shot itself in the foot. They would have to admit that they have just successfully treated a patient with LAETRILE/amygdalin/vit.B17__ and that would never do. What a monumental embarrassment it would be! And this is also the reason why such a tight rein is kept on Cat.A patients. These patients can’t be in remission in 28 days can they.

Queensland Health also uses a tight rein. In its circular no.2/2003 it goes to some lengths to point out that laetrile in oral form is toxic, and is therefore listed in "…Appendix C of the Standard for the Uniform Scheduling of Drugs and Poisons (The Standard). Substances listed in Appendix C of The Standard are those poisons that are considered of such danger to health as to warrant prohibition of sale, supply and use."

This of course flies in the face of those doctors in the medical profession who use amygdalin/Laetrile daily on patients with no toxic effects. In addition, with specific reference to oral treatment Cyto Pharma of Mexico, which company has been on the market since 1971, is well known world wide, and is the world leader in the field of the amygdalin process, has this to say in its htpp://

"Oral Ingestion. This is the most convenient and most frequently used method of amygdalin administration. The patients leaving the clinic are placed on oral amygdalin. Also, because of difficulty for some patients in going to the physicians daily, many doctors prefer this method.

For Treatment: The tablet size is 500mg. Two of these tablets should be given 3 times a day.

As a Preventive: The tablet size is 100mg. One or two tablets should be taken daily.

This data is provided for informational purposes only…"

And to think that some states in Australia do allow the importation of Amygdalin/Laetrile without interference from their state Department of Health, and Dr. Contreras in Mexico has successfully treated many many thousands of patients since 1970. In addition the toxicological rating mentioned above is in the lowest category. Somebody has got it wrong. I have asked Queensland Health for verifiable proof regarding deaths from toxicity but apparently they, too, can’t find such proof. As you will have seen previously, scientists tried for 2 years to kill a sheep but couldn’t. See also Dr. Manner’s huge dosages given to mice with no ill effect.

A word of warning.

If your doctor needs to obtain amygdalin/laetrile for your treatment, be sure that you do NOT purchase patented pharmaceutical derivatives which, according to Dr. Contreras are available world wide, but do not contain the vitamins and minerals of amygdalin/laetrile obtained from almond and apricot kernels, and which are only about 30% as effective.




If you have cancer, seek out a doctor who is prepared to treat you with amygdalin/laetrile/Vit. B17 Metabolic Therapy. Tell him you wish to have such treatment before undergoing any chemotherapy/radiation.

This involves, as you will have seen from Dr. Binzel and others, detoxification, boosting the immune system, diet and Vit. B17 treatment. You will also have noted that chemo./radiation/surgery does not prevent the spread of cancer to other sites, and that laetrile gives you the best chance by far of beating the cancer. A proper diet rich in vitamin B17 should then prevent the return of the cancer. (See below for full details of diet)

I do not know the cost of this treatment, but it should be much cheaper than chemotherapy etc. The point here is you are not covered by the NHS (medicare) or Private Health Cover and ex-service personnel are not covered by a Gold Card.

What we have to do now is force the government to allow amygdalin/laetrile/vit. B17 as an alternative treatment covered by both the NHS and Gold Card arrangements. If you are going to sit on your backside and do nothing for yourself and your children and future grandchildren, you could be responsible if they get cancer. With an election looming, and quick action by all of us there is a golden window of opportunity right now to force the government to stop letting us die unnecessarily. If you concur with what is set out above, start hounding your local federal politicians. Don’t vote for them and tell them so if they will not give you an undertaking in the press and on T.V. that before the coming election they will introduce the necessary amending legislation to allow free and unencumbered access to amygdalin/laetrile/vit.B17 and apricot kernels.

For the sake of you and your children write personally to the P.M. (c/- Government House if sufficient) and tell him what he is doing is tantamount to murder/genocide/crimes against humanity (as detailed above in Dr. Rath’s submission to the International Criminal Court) and that you won’t vote for him unless he gives you back your God-given right of informed consent. Write to Mark Latham and give the Labour Party the same ultimatum. Tell him of the overseas countries where you can be treated successfully with the alternative medicines and ask why we are being left to die. If they both refuse, remember your life and the lives of your descendants are very much at risk and vote for the Independents, The Greens, The Democrats, One Nation Party and get a government that hopefully will look after us. Time for a change.

Demand to know how much drug cartel blood money has been donated into their coffers for political purposes, how many politicians, if any, have been given free trips overseas, how much money the cartel gives to universities to control what the doctors are taught. Ask why medical students are taught nothing about alternative treatments (of which there are at least 102) or diet! Fight for your right to live, don’t pull any punches. The cartel isn’t! Fight fire with fire.

Pass this web site along throughout Australia to all you know and tell them to pass it on. Tell your friends, get them involved. Show them the truth. Let them read it and get them, too, to raise hell-because that is the only way we will succeed. Write to your newspapers with an open letter to Messrs. Howard, Latham and your local Federal politician. Get mad! You are being left to die unnecessarily.

In June 2002 I made a submission to the RSL in Hervey Bay asking them to get the governing body to put pressure on the Howard government to permit the use of alternative medicine and allow the importation/sale of apricot kernels. That submission was accepted by Queensland State Congress. The Queensland recommendation as reported in the RSL Queensland News Spring, 2003 edition was:-

"3. 2.13 Alternative cancer medicines.

That the League consult with and lobby Commonwealth and/or State Governments and their agencies with the aim of allowing access, by the removal of import restrictions and other barriers, to alternatives medicines which are claimed to arrest and regress cancers.


However, some fool from S.A., seconded by another from N.S.W., moved an amendment that was carried, that the matter be referred to the NVAC for consideration. The NVAC is an advisory body of doctors in Canberra assisting the RSL on health matters. So, I’m not going to hold my breath for a decision. I have done my own research, and I am puzzled why the RSL’s governing body can’t do the same and by-pass advice that can be proved to be lies.

As universities funded by the drug cartel do not teach doctors alternative treatments for cancer you cannot blame on your doctor. (Also they don’t seem to have time to do their own research.) But this fact cannot be used as an excuse by our government, and its enforcers the TGA and Q’ld.Health, to ignore the truth, viz: the hard solid world-wide scientific evidence from past and present doctors – also in the medical profession mind you – who have spent years in cancer research, and at the coal face, and have used, and are using amygdalin/laetrile throughout the world, to obtain results far in excess of any obtained by extremely toxic chemotherapy which will kill us.

It was also pleasing to see that Victoria, seconded by Tasmania, had a motion passed that the League bring pressure to bare on the government to allow "veterans to seek treatment from suitably qualified and registered doctors of Natural Therapies in the same manner as with their G.P’s. So, there are plenty out who are seeking alternative treatments. You are not on your own. Cracks are starting to show. Some US states are moving on their own as I mentioned above. Even here in Australia there was a report in the Brisbane Courier Mail of 19/4/04 headed "Medical Students Warned Over Gifts". This has been going on for some years of course, but it is good to see that they have been warned by Associate Professor Wendy Rogers and colleagues from Flinders University, the University of Adelaide and the Women’s and Children’s Hospital that doing so risks "..harming future patients through biased prescribing practices."

The article states "…the pharmaceutical companies spent about $1.3 billion on drug promotion in Australia last year." Gifts to student doctors included "Books, pens, food and medical equipment…" Now why, if chemo is so successful would they want to use these low underhanded tactics? Obviously the drug cartel feels it is necessary to boost sales of its own products by any means available. And what does it say about our government! How much of the $1.3 billion blood money went into the political coffers? The amount spent on medical students would be peanuts compared to the political cut. What sort of kick-back does the drug cartel expect for this sort of money? They are not philanthropists. They will surely want a return on their investment. It is little wonder that the enforcers are attacking alternative medicines, particularly laetrile, which is so successful. Could it be called bribery and corruption?

The article continues:- "…they wrote in the latest Medical Journal of Australia that gifts created a conscious or unconscious desire to do the gift-giver a favour. " Professor Rogers said, " The obligation, although often tacit, is real – prescribe this company’s drugs rather than any alternatives." As a result, the students future patients might not get the medicine most suitable for their condition. Rendering students beholden to drug companies also carried potential implications for the reform and evolution of medicine, she said, and "Accepting gifts potentially silences medical students as critics of industry – profession relationships….Both the ethical arguments and the limited available empirical evidence lead to the conclusion that the best policy is for medical students to have no contact with drug companies."

National Health and Medical Research Council ethics committee chair Kerry Breen echoed the sentiment, saying it should also extend to practicing doctors. "My criticism is of the naivete of doctors and or their unwillingness to accept overwhelming evidence that the techniques used by the industry to increase prescribing of their products actually work. "Most doctors seem to genuinely perceive they are immune to such influences." Doctors should refuse to see pharmaceutical industry sales representatives and institutions should wean themselves off drug company funding, Dr. Breen said. Well,Well!

Make a noise! Add your voice to the growing resentment against what is dictatorial stupidity – the taking away of one of our most basic human rights. Success or failure is up to all of you! Now, not tomorrow or next week, is the best time to act, as the elections are not far off. Believe me, politician will listen if you are going to vote them out of office. Just ask yourself how any decent, self respecting political party can accept blood money from the drug cartel when it has been accused in the International Criminal Court of murder, genocide and crimes against humanity. Apparently, our government doesn’t care about you having to be treated with chemotherapy only. This makes them a willing party to unnecessary deaths. Read the following from the 1988 Government Reform and Oversight Committee in the US held on 12th February, 1988.

Representative Jim Moran ( R-VA }--

Like many of the people who are involved with this issue, I support access to alternative medical treatments. My views on this have been supported by the experience that my wife and I have had with our daughter Dorothy, who suffered from medulloblastoma, a very aggressive form of brain cancer. When she was first diagnosed, she was 3 years old and was given a 20 percent chance of surviving until her 5th birthday. Dorothy's 20 percent chance of survival was contingent upon undergoing all available conventional treatments, including chemotherapy and radiation….

I am here today, because I know that our story is not unique. I have heard from thousands of people across the country who face similar situations, but who are not fortunate enough to have access to physicians who can help them seek alternative treatments, or who live in states, like California, where it is illegal for a doctor to treat cancer with anything except chemotherapy, radiation or surgery. These people are desperate because they are fighting a terminal illness and conventional treatments are failing them, and so is the medical establishment…..

Does that mean that individuals facing a life-threatening illness, who learn of a potential effective treatment, should be denied access to this treatment because it has not yet been approved by the FDA? I don't think so. I think people facing life-threatening illnesses should be able to consult with their physicians and make an informed choice about alternative treatments.

Several surveys show that individuals facing life-threatening illnesses already do this, despite roadblocks and barriers. A recent survey showed that about half of all cancer patients use an alternative cancer therapy for the treatment of their illness. Finding and using these options is difficult and risky. A child or adult with advanced cancer will often seek out advice from popular magazines, friends, health food stores, and go to foreign countries in a haphazard and expensive manner in order to seek effective treatment.

Despite the fact that the United States leads the world in exceptional medical care, the current system excludes the development and utilization of non-harmful alternative medical treatments that may help patients and generate new approaches to treating illnesses. I support Congressman DeFazio's bill, the Access to Medical Treatment Act, because it will help to open up the system to the utilization of new alternative treatments and allow physicians to discuss these treatments openly with their patients.

State Senator Ed Gochenour of Macon,Georgia

I went to three of the best neurosurgeons in Atlanta and they seemed to contradict themselves in what the best options for treatment were for me. The last doctor was one of the best neurosurgeons at Emory University in Atlanta. This doctor suggested chemotherapy and radiation and said this might control the growth of the tumor for a while but eventually it would come back and be a lot worse and at that time we would have to see what options were available. Obviously this was not a very good option in my opinion. I decided against chemotherapy and radiation because of the toxic side affects and the increase chance of other cancers they themselves caused. A person that takes chemo and radiation is 25 times more likely to have another form of cancer than the average person……

The most disheartening thing about the whole ordeal with the FDA is that while the FDA is allowing the antineoplastons to go through clinical trials to test their efficacy, they are making patients take treatments they do not want to take before they can become a part of a clinical trial. One reason we choose Dr. Burzynski is that his medicine is nontoxic. For the FDA to make a patient take radiation before they can become part of a clinical trial for antineoplastons is unreal……

When the FDA was created it was with good intent. The citizens of this country needed help with determining whether drugs were safe or not. But if I allowed my two boys to grow up without supervision they would become something different than they are now. They would be arrogant, belligerent, undisciplined and uncaring much like the FDA has become. I believe it is time that Congress steps in and brings some discipline to this department and restore some integrity.

Thank you for your time.


I am loath to suggest legal action against doctors for reasons I have given above. However,a doctor who tells you that Amygdalin/Laetrile/vit.B17 Therapy is "quackery," and insists on chemotherapy has failed in his duty of care to his patients. I think that most doctors today are aware that chemotherapy is a disappointment in all respects, and would recommend alternative treatments to cancer sufferers if they were aware of them.These doctors, in their turn, are loath to send patients to onchologists etc., but feel frustrated because they know of no alternative treatment. I know my doctor felt this way.

Consequently, if there is any reference to "quackery" and your loved one succumbs to cancer, you have to ask yourself whether legal action should be taken. Somehow this blind acceptance that orthodox treatment with chemotherapy the only option, despite its proven abject failure, has to be buried. Why Dr. Rath failed to include John Howard and the Australian Government in his action in the International Criminal Court passeth my understanding.

For my part, there is no way I will ever have chemotherapy etc. and endure the horrible side effects and loss of quality of life.I have a God-given right of informed consent to be treated with Vitamin B17 Metabolic Therapy, a proven success,(and use my gold card.) If, therefore, this is refused me, and I die from cancer,then I hope my offspring will sue the hell out of our Government in a class action. In the meantime, I am eating loades of apricot kernels,blended with pineapple for its enzymes, plus papaya enzimes from paw paw, and watching my diet.

I also have no intention of leaving myself open to the accusation that all I am doing this for is money.This website is dedicated purely and simply to those who have died needlessly because of an uncaring Government. On the other hand, I can understand very clearly why those who take legal action, or join class actions, follow that course.



The importance of diet cannot be emphasised enough. See Dr. Binzel’s book for his diet in Chapter 11 headed "The total Nutritional Program. "

General Information.

Suggested Cancer Preventatives

40 Foods Rich in Vitamin B17.

( See Phillip Day’s book "Cancer- why we’re still dying to know the truth " )

Apple seeds currants quince

Alfalfa sprouts eucalyptus leaves raspberries

Apricot kernels fava beans sorghum cane syrup

Bamboo shoots flax seeds spinach

Barley garbanzo beans sprouts (alfalfa,

Beet tops gooseberries lentil,mung bean,buckwheat

Bitter almonds huckleberries garbanzo )

Blackberries lentils strawberries

Boysenberries lima beans walnuts

Brewer’s yeast linseed meat watercress

Brown rice loganberries yams

Buckwheat macadamia nuts

Cashews millet

Cherry kernels millet seeds

cranberries peach kernels

In addition:- tapioca, kidney beans, sweet potatoes, lettuce, pecan nuts.

Dr. Joseph Mercola (

Issues Nos. 409 and 429

Nutrients and techniques that are likely to prevent cancer.

IP6 (phytic acid ) A powerful tool to lower high iron levels …..Excess iron can be a major cause of many cancers

Vitamin D

Increased Omega 3 oils and reduced Omega 6 oils.


Selenium 400mcg per day ( NOTE:I have read where selenium if taken in high doses can be toxic. Check with your doctor )

Freshly ground flax seeds – two ozs. Every other day. ( NOTE: I have read where German doctors have had some success with flaxseed oil )

Vitamin E 400 units. Only natural Vitamin E should be used, not synthetic. Additionally, mixed Tocopherol is more preferable than alpha-Tocopherol…….

Progesterol cream

Daily vegetable juice-including one small tomato (lycopene )

Stress treatment with EFT.

Cut out sugar.

Fitness-stay fit and trim.

Dr. Ralph Moss Report #64 12/12/02

Spirulina- (Scientific reviews in Latin America and Japan ) " It has been shown to be …. Effective in the treatment of allergies, anemia,cancer, high cholesterol, elevated blood sugar, viral infections, inflammatory conditions,liver damage,immunodeficiency, cardiovascular diseases and other conditions. That is a tall order to be sure, but one that is borne out by the scientific record.")

Matthias Rath MD, from his submission to the International Criminal Court (ICC) at The Hague on June !4th and !5th, 2003…….. " Cancer…….. It is a scientific fact that all cancers spread by the same mechanism, the use of collagen digesting enzymes…..The therapeutic use of the natural amino acid Lysine-especially together with other non-patentable micronutrients- can block these enzymes and thereby inhibit the spread of cancer cells. All types of cancer studied thus far respond to this therapeutic approach including breast cancer, prostate cancer, lung cancer,skin cancer,fibroblastoma,synovial cancer and any other forms of cancer.

The only reason why this breakthrough in medicine has not investigated further and applied in the treatment of cancer patients world _ wide is the fact that these substances are not patentable and therefore has low profit margins…."


Quotes from Edgar Cayce, God’s messenger last century. (He died in1945.)

Bitter almonds: Those who would eat two or three almonds a day need never fear cancer. The apple was the fall, not almond-for the almond blossomed when everything else died. Remember, This is Life (21/12/43 ) Those who take a peanut oil rub once a week need never fear arthritis. (added to a comment on almonds 31/8/41.)

Beware of meats. This has caused the greater distress at the present time. 28/8/28.

Six to eight glasses of water a day.The kidneys must be flushed out. 29/4/38.

No strawberries or any other fruits of the acid taste. Citrus fruits are NOT acid producing. 18/2/23.

Watermelon is for the activity of the liver and kidney.. Most of all pray.Let mental attitude be considered first and foremost. 31/7/43.

Have at least one meal each day wholly of green vegetables. That is, FRESH, not necessarily green. Have with mayonnaise. 12/6/34..

Carrots for purifying the blood.31/7/43.

Salads with gelatin (Note: The gelatin allows the body to assimilate more of the goodness from the fresh salad.) 28/12/43.

No white bread. 21/7/44.



A comment on Cayce’s strong reference to bitter almonds:_ Today we cannot buy bitter almonds thanks to the idiocy of genetic engineering. G.E. is irreversible. Consequently, the strongest God –given prevention for cancer is no longer available at least in Australia. What will they do to our food next all for the sake of money?

From Dr. Matthias Rath’s Submission to the International Criminal Court.

  1. "The identification of the natural molecules that optimize cellular metabolism enables mankind to prevent and largely eliminate most of todays common diseases including cardiovascular disease, cancer and many others."
  2. "A multitude of clinical studies is available documenting the benefits of non-patentable micronutrients, in particular the amino acid arginine and magnesium. They correct the deficiency in millions of vascular cells thereby relaxing the blood vessel walls, increasing blood vessel diameter and helping to normalise high blood pressure.

Pharmaceutical drugs sold for treatment of high blood pressure … For example, beta-blockers…have long term detrimental side effects potentially causing a multitude of new diseases."


"Therapeutic use of lysine blocks enzymes that inhibit the spread of cancer cells. All types of cancer studied thus far respond to this therapeutic approach including breast cancer, prostate cancer, lung cancer, skin cancer, fibroblastoma, synovial cancer and any other forms of cancer.

The only reason why this break through in medicine has not been investigated further and applied in the treatment of cancer patients world wide is the fact that these substances are not patentable and therefore have low profit margins."

"…single most important measure to enhance immunity …is an optimum intake of vitamins B6, B12, Folic Acid and certain other essential nutrients. It is a scientific fact that these biocatalysts of cellular metabolism increase the production of leucocytes, the body’s main weapon against any infection."

"…the human body does not produce it’s own vitamin C (ascorbic acid). Therefore almost all 000000humans suffer from Vitamin C deficiency and are susceptible to cardiovascular and other diseases…"

"…the human body does not produce the natural amino acid lysine. Therefore all humans suffer from lysine deficiency and are susceptible to cancer and other diseases."..

Alkaline balance.

It is claimed that an 80% intake of alkaline producing foods with a 20% intake of acid producing foods is the best way to ensure good health, subject to eating good healthy foods, preferably organic , non genetically engineered, and grown within 50 miles of where you live, or foods that are grown in your own back yard. I notice that this 80/20 ratio has come into prominence over the past few years. The chart of alkaline to acid foods which follows came from Edgar Cayce’s ‘higher source.’

Group 1—alkaline—80%

FRUIT—all kinds

RAW VEGETABLES—above ground to below ground in ratio of 3 to 1, one leafy variety to 1 pod variety. Include a variety of both yellow and green.

BEVERAGES—8 glasses of water daily, herbal tea, fresh juices

Group 2—acid--20%



DAIRY PRODUCTS---dry milk, buttermilk,skim milk,yogurt,wholemilk,butter.

BREAD--- black pumpermickle, rye, whole grain, rye, chrisp wheat.

Cereal---cooked or dry shredded wheat. All bran, granola, wheat germ, any whole grain cereal.

Group 3—about 3 times per week

CHEESE, EGGS, Foods prepared in gelatin,--SPICES and CONDIMENTS sparingly, POTATOES WITH SKIN, OILS

COLD PRESSED—sunflower, safflower,walnut,olive, sesame, mayonnaise.


Group 4—AVOID!

Cakes and pastries, Processed foods, candy, any fried foods,alcohol- occasional wine O.K. Pasta__macaroni,spaghetty,noodles, TV dinners,sugar coated cereals, carbonated beverages, Fefined Products—white flour,white sugar, white bread. Pork—except occasional crisp bacon.


Edgar Cayce is regarded by millions as God’s messenger last century. He died in 1945. And before you start calling me a religious nut, I haven’t been to church since returning from WW2. He could and did lay on a couch, go into what was termed a self-induced state, for want of a better expression, diagnose illnesses of anybody anywhere in the world provided he knew the time the patient would be at a given address , diagnose what the illness was, whether it was curable and, if so, advise the cure.He knew nothing about medicine or the human body when he was not in his trance-like state. However, doctors examining his ‘readings’ as they were called, stated that he seemed to have the ability to see inside a body and examine every cell.

He could speak any language, including dead languages which he had to be told to translate into modern day english. He never knew a word he spoke while in the trance-like state and all his readings were taken down in front of witnesses and had to be read back to him after he regained a normal concious state. His "higher source’ as he called it, never allowed him to charge for his readings. When eventually asked why Mr. Cayce couldn’t have a better lifestyle the higher source indicated that as he had three meals a day and a roof over his head he had everything he needed. The number of readings he gave to help people numbered approximately 14,000.His source also stated that for every disease known to man there is a cure in nature, and that at the end of the 20th century civilisation will again (emphasis mine) be faced with the decision of taking the right path or the wrong path.

The following list of alkaline forming foods and acid forming foods should help you in selecting your diet:-

Alkaline Foods.

Alfalfa Currants Onions

Almonds Dates Oranges(tree ripened)

Apples Eggplant Parsley

Apricots Figs Pawpaw

Artichokes Garlic Parsnips

Asparagus Gelatine(veg.) Peaches

Avocados Goat’s milk Pears

Bananas(ripe) Grapes Peas(fresh)

Beans(string) Grape juice Peppers

Beans(kidney) Grape fruit Persimmons

Beetroot Honey Pineapple

Blackberries Juice(fruit) Plums

Brazil nuts Juice(veg.) Potatoes

Broccoli Kelp Prunes

Broth(vegetable) Leek Pumpkins

Cabbage(red) Lemons Radishes

Cantaloupe Lecithin Raisins

Carrots(raw) Lettuce Raspberries

Carrot juice Limes Rhubarb

Cauliflower Lima beans Sorrel

Celery Mushrooms Soya beans

Cherries Okra Spinich

Coconut Olives(ripe) Sprouts

Cucumbers Olive oil Squash, Strawberries

Turnips, Watercress

Acid Foods

Barley Fish Pork

Beef Flour(wheat) Potatoes(sweet)

Beans(lima) Gluten flour Processed cheeses


Beans (white) Ham Rice(polished)

Bread Lamb Roquefort cheese

Buttermilk Lentils Rye flour

Cashew nuts Lobsters Rabbit

Cereals Macaroni Sauerkraut

Chestnuts Maize Spaghetti

Chicken Milk Sugar(raw)

Chocolate Millet Sugar(white)

Cocoa Most meats Syrup

Corn Mutton Tapioca

Cornmeal Oatmeal Tomatoes

Cottage cheese Oysters Turkey

Crabs Peanuts Veal

Crackers Peanut butter Vinegar

Duck Pecan nuts Walnuts

Eggs Peas(dried)

The Stupid Ban On Apricot Kernels.

Dr. Contreras in Mexico recommends that for prevention 6to7 aprocot kernels should be ingested each day. As you know they are banned from importation or sale in this lucky land of Oz, and this smart state of Queensland. Foods that have as much Vit.17 as apricot kernels (> 500mg.) are included in the list below. ( See Note that these foods have NOT been banned from sale or from importation.Why, if they are as ‘toxic’ as apricot kernels? Work that out! It simply means that there is no logical reason for banning apricot kernels.

Fruit: Apple (seeds) >500 mg Apricot (kernels) >500 mg
Cherry (stones) >500 mg Nectarine (stones) >500 mg
Peach Stones >500 mg Pear Pips >500 mg
Lime Pips Plum Stones
Prune Seeds >500 mg Elderberries >500 mg
Boysenberries 100-500 mg Raspberries 100-500 mg
Blackberries - Wild >500 mg Currants 100-500 mg
Gooseberries100-500 mg


Cassava Large Amounts Buckwheat 100-500 mg (Also known as Tapioca)

Millet 100-500 mg


Mung Bean -sprouts >500 mg Chick Peas 100-500 mg
Alfalfa Sprouts 100-500 mg Black-Eyed Peas 100-500 mg
Kidney Beans 100-500 mg Lentils 100-500 mg
Lima Beans 100-500 mg

Almonds >500 mg Macadamia Nuts >500 mg

Flax Seeds 100-500 mg

However, keep in mind that to prevent cancer it is necessary that you partake of a healthy diet, including foods that contain Vit.B17

Repeated—a comparison of results.

What you do now is up to you. For the purpose of emphasis, I am repeating Dr. Binzel’s results compared to the results of the figures quoted by the American Cancer Society itself.

For Primary Cancer:- ACS:- In primary cancer, with early diagnosis and early treatment with surgery,and/or radiation and/or chemotherapy, eighty-five percent (85%) of the patients will die from their disease within five years.

For Primary Cancer,- Dr. Binzel:- "…out of 180 patients, over a period of 18 years, 87.3% did not die from their disease…"

For Metastatic Cancer:- ACS:- In metastatic cancer , with early diagnosis and early treatment with surgery, and/or radiation and/or chemotherapy, only 0.1% ( one out of one thousand ) of those patients will survive five years.

For Metastatic Patients : Dr.Binzel:- "…out of 108 patients with metastatic cancer, over a period of 18 years, 76 of those patients (70.4% ) did not die of their disease…. If you consider only those patients who have survived five years or more, this means that my results were 287% better than those reported by the cancer society for the treatment of metastatic cancer by "orthodox" methods alone…"


The results of this doctor alone give the lie to the hopeful claims made by the drug cartel that the success of Laetrile may be due to delayed action of chemotherapy.



This site will be up-dated from time to time. To beat the Drug Cartel it is absolutely essential that we attack them every time they lie. Don’t be stupid and vote for any party that is going to let you die, because that is exactly what will happen if you get cancer.The WHO doesn’t indulge in scare tactics, but their figures on the increase of cancer victims by 2020 are scary enough. We must have undertakings in the press and on TV that amygdalin/Laetrile/Vit.B17 will be available immediately to all Australians under our health scheme, preferably before the election. Start your campaign now. Pressure your politicians for a commitment. Keep at them.Write open letters to the newspapers and ask for a reply in that newspaper. It’s not only your health that is at stake, but the health of those that come after you, such as your as yet unborn grandchildren.

ADDITION of 26/05/04

If you are not yet convinced that the Drug Cartel is deliberately letting us die unnecessarily, please read the following article by Dr. Mercola titled " How Could Drug Companies Be So Evil? ", which points to "…damning evidence of the drug companies’ patent disregard for the safety of humans…" and specifically to children who are committing suicide after taking the antidepressant drugs listed.


How Could Drug Companies be so Evil?

By Dr. Joseph Mercola

According to the first comprehensive scientific review to include all available studies, including negative data that have long been withheld from public scrutiny by the pharmaceutical industry, four popular antidepressants being used to treat thousands of depressed American children are unsafe, ineffective or both. Those antidepressants are:

This is damning evidence of the drug companies' patent disregard for the safety of humans and focus on profits. GlaxoSmithKline was found to be concealing evidence that shows that these drugs do not benefit children in any way and only increase their risk of killing themselves. This was confirmed in an article in the Canadian Medical Journal.

Fortunately, the British medical journals are far more responsive than the American ones. The Lancet’s editorial states:

Folks, if this doesn't make you fighting mad, what will?

Just sit down and think about it for a moment. Drug companies do the research and learn that the drugs don't work, yet are willing to sell and market them to children even when it is clear that they are causing many children to commit suicide.

Unpublished studies of venlafaxine suggested the drug increased suicide-related events such as suicidal thoughts or attempts by 14 times compared with placebo. This is reprehensible and despicable behavior equivalent to any third-world dictator.

How can anyone possibly support this approach?

If this makes you one-tenth as angry as it does me, I encourage you to do something practical about it. Tell several of your friends and have them join the newsletter so they can learn practical alternatives to the ineffective and deadly solutions being manipulated onto us and our children so these evil companies can earn more profit.

Rather than risking the potentially deadly side effects of these drugs, I recommend the following three steps. The great majority of patients at my clinic noticed an amazing improvement in their depression when following them:

Popping pills is rarely the answer to helping children suffering from depression; it is only a temporary Band-Aid. In order to truly help these children, we need to focus on finding the underlying cause of the problem, then search for ways to treat it.

Related Articles:

Benefits of Several Antidepressants Similar
Antidepressants May Trigger Violent Behavior
Sugar Pills Work as Well As Antidepressants
Some Antidepressants Change Rat Brain Cells
Antidepressants and Suicide in Children: Why Did the Warnings Take so Long?
Antidepressants Causing Suicides in Kids

Return to Table of Contents #533

Have any of you heard of the above disclosure? Of the Drug company being charged with murder? Any expression of disgust by the P.M. or the TGA in Canberra? Or by the Qld. Government or Queensland Health? Why the silence?

The present government is asking for another term in office. The P.M. struts the world stage but turns a blind eye to such happenings, while the TGA hides the truth as usual and the Drug Cartel rubs its hands on the way to the bank. How could anybody possibly vote for any political party which condones the unnecessary deaths of children. There are no condolences for the parents or expressions of sorrow, disgust or horror, apparently.
What sort of a society do we live in when the Drug Cartel can put pressure on our governments, and apparently the news media also,to suppress such dreadful happenings? These drugs are sold world wide and therefore possibly used in treating Australian children also. The headlines should have been screaming their disgust. Instead, silence. Everywhere!

It makes one ashamed to be an Australian when our government seems to be (or is? ) involved in a cover up of this nature. Has the TGA banned these drugs? Are we being run by a dictatorship?

Wake up Australia! Get mad, start writing letters to politicians and the press Ask questions. If you don’t the Drug Cartel will continue on its merry way, and our government bureaucracy will walk all over you. The obvious hold that the Drug Cartel has on our Government has got to be broken, or poisonous drugs will be the only medication offered to us. This can be done through the ballot box, but is going to take one hell of a backlash against unnecessary deaths, one of which could be yours. This is everybody’s fight. Don’t leave it to somebody else. The bigger the outcry the better. Our most potent weapon is the ballot box, so threaten them with it!


A Successful Immune Treatment for Cancer? Well,Statistically That Is.

Full details of this are in The Moss Reports Newsletter of 04/18/04 dated Monday 19 April,2004, website ref. Excerpts follow.


In February, Dr. Dieter Jocham and his colleagues in Lubeck, Germany published an article in the Lancet on a new kidney (renal cell) cancer vaccine. This "adjuvant autologous vaccine" was shown to slow the progress of renal cell cancer (RCC) after the surgical removal of the affected kidney (an operation called radical nephrectomy). The researchers concluded that their vaccine "seems to be beneficial" and "should be considered" for similar patients (Jocham 2004). Meanwhile, the Lancet's editorialists hailed this paper as a "milestone" and an "immunological breakthrough" (Fishman 2004).

I certainly have no objection to doctors who use vaccines to treat kidney cancer. In fact, I think it's a better idea than just waiting for cancer to recur. But has this vaccine's effectiveness really been proven? How, exactly, did the researchers measure the success of the therapy?

They measured it not by whether or by how much the treatment extended the lives of the patients but by how long their disease was kept stable before it began relentlessly progressing again. (This is what is meant by so-called 'progression-free survival'). The authors claimed that they chose progression-free survival as the primary goal of their treatment "because even with surgery for metastatic disease and modern immunotherapy …survival for most patients is between 12 and 18 months, and fewer than 5 percent survive longer than 5 years." ……………….


"Although I strongly support cancer immunotherapy, particularly for this type of kidney cancer, I am concerned about raising unfounded hopes. Progression-free survival is a therapeutic straw man. By adopting this as a therapeutic goal and aspiring to it, instead of aiming at nothing less than life prolongation, researchers may give patients an unfounded reassurance that they are on the road to recovery, when in fact they are not. This could result in profound psychological distress and lost opportunities for some patients.

It is tempting, in the face of repeated difficulties, to substitute surrogate goals for actual life prolongation. I am hardly alone in questioning the value of progression-free survival as a meaningful yardstick of the benefit of new approaches. At a meeting of the Food and Drug Administration's Oncology Drugs Advisory Committee last year, panelists were asked whether they would accept progression-free survival as a primary endpoint for new drug approval in inoperable, locally advanced cancer. The vote was unequivocally against: no-15, yes-4 (FDA 2003). I would have voted with that majority.

This article was written with the assistance of Drs. Giancarlo Pizza and Caterina de Vinci of the Immunodiagnosis and Immunotherapy Unit, 1st Division of Urology, S.Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, Bologna, Italy. Dr. Pizza can be contacted at


I presume that such treatments, if there is a period of progression- free survival, will statistically be recorded as a success, as the researchers have stated "…we did not use overall survival as the primary end point….."

Why? may I ask. Statistically, I would suggest that, in view of the FDA’s record in accepting size reduction of tumors as a success, even if the patient dies, any "progression-free survival" will be added to the "success"side of the ledger, even if the disease begins its "…relentlessly progressing again…" So much for statistics.



In the interest of humanity please publish this letter

From one of the many Cancer sufferers who will be voting at the coming election!




In a close Election, are you prepared to let this election be decided on Cancer?

The incidence of cancer will increase by 50% by 2020 (Recent W.H.O conclusion after its world-wide survey). This means that 3 out of 4 or 5 of the population will die from cancer as chemotherapy is a failure.

At present you are letting us die unnecessarily when a successful, non-toxic treatment (since 1845) has been available in such countries as England, France, Germany, Russia, Italy, Israel, Japan, The Philippines, The Caribbean, Canada, Mexico etc.

For example, it is fact that thousands upon thousands of American cancer patients travelled to Mexico each year for successful non-toxic Vitamin B17 Metabolic Therapy, which is banned in Australia unless you are declared terminal! Why? It was non-toxic when used in Russia in 1845 and has been ever since.

For details on how the Drug Cartel has lied (this is fact and their credibility has been shot to pieces), conned you, committed perjury, engineered test results they wanted, and for irrefutable proof that the treatment has a success rate far in excess of any other therapy, please see my website at

Metthias Rath (U.S.) has taken the Drug Cartel and the U.S. Government to the International Criminal Court (I.C.C.) at The Hague and charged them with murder, genocide and crimes against humanity. The initial hearing was on the 14th and 15th of June 2003. He is not the only one to go public with this accusation (full details at the website and quote).

You promised to look after we WW2 and other war veterans, but you are not. If we can afford it we can travel overseas and be successfully treated. If we can’t you will gladly pay for a treatment that will surely kill us.

We will not vote for a political party that lets us die unnecessarily, so, Mr Howard, you either amend the law before the Election and allow all Australians access Alternative Cancer Treatments, or you Mr Latham give a Public Undertaking that your Party if elected, immediately amend the law or neither of you deserve nor will receive the votes of the thousands of Cancer sufferers whose plight you are ignoring for the benefit of the vested interests in the Drug Industry.

There are plenty of capable Politicians in the other Parties as well as Independents who are sympathetic to our cause and in the case of a hung Parliament, something not unheard of in State Politics or the Senate in this Country in recent times, could decide the outcome of this Election based on this issue and enough sufferers to make their vote one worth capturing.

The ball is now firmly in your respective courts.

Noel S. Gomersall

U2, 43 Milton St., Maryborough, Queensland, 4650.

E-mail Ph.0741221595

WW2 vet with gold card . Ex RAAF