Sie sind auf Seite 1von 9

The

GREAT
CANCER
FRAUD
By GARY NULL and ROBERT HOUSTON

Reprinted from PENTHOUSE September 1979


America's cancer plague has
made the medical establishment and its
media collaborators rich-
even as they suppress -Aew cancer cures.

fter half..a century of organized cancer research


and eight years of the U.S. ·war on cancer,"
the death rafe and incidence of the disease have
climbed higher than at any other time ih history. As
the di$astrous failure of the cancer war effort becomes
incre.asl~;~gly Qbvious to a public shocked by
rel):eated,news of Increasing cancer rates a(ld new
cancer-causing hazards, widespread doubt has
developed concerning fhe valoe ofthe entire system of
cancer r'esearch and treatment in the Western world.
A correspondi'ng Interest is arising in alternative
approaches to cancer therapy, including issues of controversy Much of the product search linking smoking to cancer, was
nutritional and immunological methods, as is well-written, useful information, for which asked to speak at the American Cancer
the fai lures and hazards of the standard the public can only be grateful. Science, for Society Science Writers' confe rence in
treatments - surgery, radiation, and che- many people, is a complex subject and one 1969. Jones delivered a bombshell report
motherapy- become increasingly appar- by which they are constantly intimidated. on his research concerning cancer survival
ent. Therefore many people, feeling they are statistics. According to Jones, the fai lure of
The issues involved are not merely of uneducated about the "sci entific progress" past survival studies was that they did not
academic interest , but are likely to intrude of the medical establishment, depend take into account the fact that the worst,
at a dramatic, personal level at some point more heavily for their information on what inoperable cases we re left in the groups
in the li fe of the reader. they read than they do with practically any that were untreated. Thus many cancer
At present rates, two out of three families other subject. Only since the dawn of studies were based on research done with
will be struck by cancer. Today one in five "self-health'' consciousness and attention operable and "healthier" cases, giving the
deaths is due to it; just ten years ago the to nutrition at the grass-roots level has there mistaken judgment that surgery and radia-
rat1o was one in s1x . According to a recent been real controversy over matters of tion were of value in cancer treatment.
American Cancer Society study, the prob- health. People all over the country have When Jones corrected for such bias statis-
ability at birth of developing cancer in one's begun to take health into their own hands. tically, he found that "the apparent life ex-
lifetime increased in white males from 23 Almost invariably, however, the news pectancy of untreated cases of cancer ...
percent in 1950 to 26 percent in 1970, and coverage has not undergone any such seems to be greater than that of the treated
1n wh1te females from 28 percent in 1950 to change and still remains in the horse-and- cases. " In short , convent ional cancer
30 percent in 1970; for nonwhites the in- buggy era when it comes to health and therapy didn't work.
crease was even more marked. The odds medicine. Even today, practically all news Only two reporters present at this confer-
are one in four that someday you II get it. coverage of health issues seems to be ence reported this astonishing information:
The failure of the war against cancer is sharply skewed in favor of the AMA-FDA Dave Cleary of the Philadelphia Bulletin
obv1ously at least as important as Water- position. After all, as conventional wisdom and John Matonis of Hea lth Bulletin.
gate, Koreagate, and other examples of Though repeated in 1975 and 1977,
recent med1a crusades. But there is evi- Jones's findings were incredibly ignored by
dence now to indicate that the same news the major news media until he d ied in 1978.
organizations that so vigorously pursued The fact remains, however, that there is
social justice are pawns of a socio-political hope. There are various public groups and
establishment that acts to control our most dedicated scientists who are fighting
precious commod1ty - health. Often more
In 1973 a leading cancer in effective, innovative ways w ith
powerful than the federal government. this cancer researcher charged essentially nontoxic age nts. Some re-
group has for the past fifty years been that virtually all conventional searchers !eel they may have discovered
steadily suppressing innovative ideas in therapies that not only arrest cancer but
medicine, particularly new ideas in cancer anticancer drugs actually also check it completely, and they present
prevention and treatment. This collusive caused cancer. Editors at clincial reports that will back them up. Why
pressure group, sometimes known as the haven't we heard about these?
Medical Establishment, is made up of the Time and the Associated Every year, millions of dollars are spent
prestigious America n Medical Association, Press killed the story. hoaxing the public out of good nutrition into
the powerful drug and chemical industries, chemically polluted low-health diets-- and
the National Cancer Institute. the public- ultimately into cancer. Then start the treat-
supported American Cancer Society, the ments that knife, burn, poison, and, in some
federal Food and Drug Administration, and cases, kill you sooner than any cancer
many science wnters who work for the na- could. And all this costs thousands of dol-
tional news media. has it, "you r doctor should know. " lars, hard-earned money that goes right
To see how insidiously thi s alliance But what do doctors really know? It's in- into the pockets of the medical establish-
works, one need only look at the facts in the teresting to note that medical schools re- ment every day to continue the work of "the
web of politics, fear. and intrigue that is quire no courses in nutrition and diet for cancer factory "
spun around the minds, hearts, cancer- doctors. "In fact ," says Dr. Roger J. Williams The plain fact is that the news media do
ndden bodies. and savings of an unsus- in his book Nutrition against Disease, not investigate health issues thoroughly.
pecting American . public. In so doing, "medical schools in this country are now With regard to the scientific results of a
however, one must distinguish reality from standard ized (if not homogenized) . A health issue, only the official view is gener-
its often distorted reflection in the press. strong orthodoxy has developed that has ally recognized, however intense the public
The national news media consist of the without a doubt put a damper on the gen- controversy In fact , the more intense the
three major television networks; the two eration of challenging ideas. Since we all controversy over the issues, the more rigor-
major wire services, Associated Press and have one kind of medicine now-estab- ous appears to be the exclusion of the dis-
United Press International; the newspapers lished medicine-all medical schools sident scientific viewpoint. This is not bal-
w1th national influence, such as the New teach essentially the same things. The cur- anced. or even honest, reporting-in the
York Times and the Washington Post; and ricula are so full of supposedly necessary political arena it woul d be termed prop a-
the two major news magazines, Time and things that there is too little time or inclina- ganda or, at best, public relations. By such
Newsweek. On health issues as well as tion to explore new approaches. [t then be- practice many health reporters of the na-
other topics, they tend to interact as a sys- comes easy to drift into the convention that tional news media have thus become little
tem to feature the same stories: the net- what is accepted is really and unalterably more than PR agents for the medical estab-
works and newspapers take their cues from true. When science becomes orthodoxy, it lishment, highly praised and paid in their
the wire services, and the magazines take ceases to be science. It ceases to search preparation of supportive puffery and
their cues from the New York Times. A total for the truth./t a/so becomes liable to error." p ropaganda for its never-ending war
of perhaps a dozen persons controls these This blindness and rigidity on the part of against dissent.
giant spotlights in their focus on health sto- establishment medicine and its media Let us look at how the cancer establish-
nes for the nation. apologists is superbly illustrated by the ment influences these reporters - and then
With reliable $kill and efficiency, the re- example of the late Dr. Hardin Jones, pro- see how the reporters go into action to
porters grind ' out an immense amount of fe ssor of medical physics and physiology quash new cancer treatments.
copy, extolling the progress of establish- at the University of California at Berkeley The action begins every spring, when the
ment medicine and parroting its views on Jones, a pioneer in epidemiological re- American Cancer Society, one of the
largest chantable" organizations in the arise with respect to the ACS's accumula- and Government Report . Greenberg has
world. nolds its nat1onal Science Writers' tion of assets beyond the amount required also taken issue with the Pollyanna image
Seminar at a resort locale Here. selected for its next year's budget. ... ACS re- of cancer-research progress in the col-
health reporters from the lead1ng media are peatedly cla1med over the past several umns of his colleagues. Examining the final
so1reed and surfe1ted m poolside lux- years ... that it would have made more data of the National Cancer Institute on
ury - a luxury that bespeaks the $126 mil- research grants had suffic1ent funds been survival rates. he concluded that "the pub-
lion the ACS raised ~ast year from the pub- available. a statement not substantiated by lic is get11ng a snow JOb about progress in
lic and slipped rah-rah cancer progress the facts. " cancer r~search and treatment. . . After
stones from acceptable researchers. The What the National Information Bureau twenty-five years and several billion dollars
Amer1can Cancer Soc1ety semmars are es- has couched in polite terms is only too cen- expended on resea rc h for cures, survival
sentially the spnng fashion shows of surable for the many grief-stricken and rates for the most common types of can-
cancer research. letting health and sci- cancer-ridden people of this country who cer- those accountmg for some 80 per-
ence reporters know where the big money's think their only hope 1s a "checkup and a cent of all cases- are virtually unchanged
going - though in actuality the expense check." [and '[ in some instances have worsened."
has yielded almost complete fai lure at re- Approximately 70 percent of the ACS's Greenberg blames this problem on "a
ducing the overall mortality level. There is meager research budget goes to suppor t generally passive lay press" that refuses to
always a "brea kthrough " or two an- research that is carried on by institutions investigate. Why? The answer appeared in
nounced. and th1s right around contri bution with which the board d irectors affiliate. Pat- an article by Greenberg for the Columbia
t1me. which neatly and coincident ally rick McG rady. Sr., science editor for the Journalism Review in 1975, for which he
dovetails w1th the science writers' confer- American Cancer Society for twenty-five talked confidentially to insiders in the re-
ence. yea rs before he resigned in disgust at the search establishment. In their defense
This annual spectacle exemplifies how extent of its ineptitude, said that ACS offi- these researchers told Greenberg that
some health reporters become engaged in cials "close the door on innovative ideas." A "there is no conscious intention to mislead
not so much JOurnalism as advertising , notable example is Dr. Linus Pauling, who the public. Rather, there is a desire to sus-
thereby boosting the profits of the medical tain public support and federal appropria-
establishment. tions by conveying a p icture of an im-
From the conference. the public receives mensely difficult problem that will slowly

'
a barrage of "progress on cancer " articles. yield if we spend on it and work at it. "
through wh1ch its cancer consciousness is In other words - they want money.
raised and 1ts res1stance softened by Thus, p ublic and government funds go to
paraded false hopes. Then the fund raising suppor t resea rchers who are not working
is put into high gear. and checks by the At present rates on feasible cures, while more people need-
millions are raked in for the avowed pur- two out of three families wi ll lessly d ie agonizing deaths in the inte rim as
pose of fur thering research to the imminent the "immense problem" is "slowly yielding."
triumph that lies "just over th e horizon"- be struck by cancer. This becomes doubly distu rbing when we
where it has remained stu ck since the ACS The odds are one in four that realize that today the re are as many people
began in 1913 as an "emergency tempo- making a living from cancer as there are
rary organization ." What happened be-
someday you 'll get it. those who are dying from it each year. The
tween that emergency time and now is a figures are staggering: the disease will
story filled with politiCS and with the need- strike this year 765.000 Americans and kill
less deaths of millions of Americans. Suf- about 400 ,000 . As one researcher
fice it to say that the American Cancer So- summed it up, "There's a good deal of harm
Ciety has been turned by members of the [from the lax1ty of the medical establish-
Madison Avenue advertising community ment in seeking a cure], because as long
into a self-perpetuating, propagandistic has come up with some very positive find- as the establishment is persuading the
money machine. ings to show that vitamin C can extend public that results are being achieved.
The American Cancer Society had an cancer survival manyfold. This eminent there isn't going to be any pressure for
income of $140 m1llion 1n fiscal 1978, with scientiSt, who is the only living person to supporting alternatives to these dead-end
assets totaling over $228 million; it spends have won the Nobel Prize twice, never had lines of research that dominate the pro-
less than 30 percent of its yearly income on any trouble getting grants before he be- g ram."
research studies. Many feel that the Ameri- cam e involved with vitamin C. Since then Where are these alternatives, and how
can Cancer Society is largely responsible he has been rejected by the America n can we support them? The p ublic may want
for the inef fectiveness of the War on Cancer Cancer Society as well as by the National to know, but the public will not know -the
today. Contrary to the image it cultivates, Cancer Institute research grant commit- alterna tives have been covered up by
the ACS doesn't conduct much of its own tees five times. those science wri te rs of the national news
research but fund s certain outside re- How can the American Cancer Society media who ride shotgun for the medical
search. get away with it? For the answer. we must establishment's solid-gold cancer train.
Examining the economics of "charity," we now return to the na tional news-media sci- Nobel Prize- winning geneticist Dr.
find that 56 percent of the ACS budget ence writers at the luxurious resort where James Watson. codiscoverer of DNA and
goes to its staff and office expenditures the ACS was holding 1ts annual Science director of the Cold Spring Harbor Lab on
(some of its executives make up to $75,000 Writers' Seminar. Long Island, asser ts: "The American pub-
a year). Over $200 million of its nest egg is Dave Cleary. wntmg in the National As- lic is being sold a nasty bill of goods about
invested. makmg the ACS a prime banking sociation of Science Wnters Newsleller in cancer. While they 're being told about
customer. On 1ts board of directors are June 1971, said. "How much longer are we cancer cures, the cure rate has improved
e1ghteen people who are affiliated with of the science-writing fraternity going to be only about 1 percent. Today the press re-
banks. As of August 1976, over 42 percent subjected to these annual extravaganzas, leases coming out of the National Cancer
of its assets were invested directly in those consisting in significant part of unjustified Institute have all the honesty of the Penta-
banks with which these directo1s were affil- speculation?" At the 1971 ACS seminar, gon's."
iated. Quite as shocking are the findings of Cleary also criticized "science writers for Indeed, a better way to describe the
an audl! of the ACS in 1976-1 978 by the not being more discerning in their reports media-manufactured Wa r on Cancer wou ld
Nat1 onal Information Bureau, the nationally on what scientists say." be to call it the War on Cancer Cures. In the
recogniz ed independent overseer of Science writer Daniel Greenberg ech- past fifty years, a number of economical
charities. It concluded: "Questions [must] oed the sentiment. As editor of Science and clin i call y documented ca n cer
tnerapies have been suppressed by the cases - tl1ey became cancer-free, the1r Cancer Control Method , and Wachtel 's
med1cal establishment. former doctors sometimes destroyed rec- P1tuitary Approach. and one begins to get
One poss1ble remedy for cancer that was ords conflrmu1g that they even had the diS- an idea of what·s been going on under-
buried under the mountain of red tape and ease. ground.
fear was the controvers1al Gerson D1et. Dr In 1946 the US. Senate invi ted Gerson to Then there·s the amazing case of Koch's
Max Gerson discovered the diet as a cure hearings on a bill to authorize funds for Glyoxylide - one of the saddest stories
for h1s own migra1ne headaches; later he research on the prevention and cure for ever to d1sgrace the med1cal power struc-
adapted his cleansing , salt-free, vegeta- cancer. He appeared and presented f1ve ture in the Un1ted States.
ble-and-fruit d1et to the cure of lupus and cancer-free pat1ents and their case his- Koch's Glyoxylide was a treatment to
tuberculosis. In the early twentieth century, tories before a Senate committee, all mem- stimulate cell ox1dat1on and included a diet
to say that TB could be cured by a spec1al bers of wh1ch were impressed with his find- that stimulated the cleansmg of the body
d1et was to appear ridiculous. even though ings. The favorable, 227 -page Congres- (Or William Koch s theones 1mplic1tly sup-
there was even then much research on diet sional Comm1ttee Report- - document ported Gerson·s and contradicted the con-
and nutrition. Gerson compiled his results #894 71· now gathers dust in the arch1ves ventional opin1on.) His internal treatment of
and proved clinically that h1s diet worked; of the Government Printing Office. A news- cancer. 111 combmat1on w1th diet, would ex-
h1s scientific papers appeared in several paper reporter who inquired was Informed tinguish the torments of surgery and irradi-
issues of MediZm1sche Welt in the late twen - that there were ' no copies left. " Just f1ve ation. In Koch·s view, a surgeon who claims
ties and th1rt1e s. Some newspapers and years af ter the congressional heanngs, to cure cancer by operation ··not only belies
magazines in Europe hailed the discovery, Gerson was not allowed to practice at any the statistics but also shows his ignorance
but the bitterness of the med1cal fratern1ty New York hosp1tal and found it difficult to of the minute structure of the body. together
knew no bounds ··1rs not sc1entific1 ·· they secure assistants. Up till then he had for w1th an ignorance of pathology."'
cried. over twenty years demonstrated excellent Koch's work was judged and con-
Why were physicians so upset when results 1n treating cancer. His approach demned to be worthless by the "Cancer
Gerson had leg1timate findmgs? Was 1t was on a highly scientifiC level, and h1s Committee·· of the Wayne County Medical
possible that it was more profitable to look credentials were the finest. Yet Gerson Soc1ety in 1923 - a committee made up for
for a cure than to find one? Gerson con- never received a penny from cancer- the most part of surgeons and radium or
tinued publishmg and 1n the 1930s ref1ned funding agencies to aid his researches. He X-ray "experts," a class of people that as-
his diet for the treatment of cancer patients. was the victim of a by-now-familiar cancer sumed cancer to be curable only by these
Finally, af ter decades of clin1cal test1ng , blackout: the inventor is isolated; the medi- methods As a result , both Koch and his
Gerson published a book called A Cancer cal journals won't publish his work; and cancer treatment were suppressed, and
Therapy in 1958. Thi s volume descnbed a when he publishes elsewhere, they say it is the oppression extended to other doctors
strikingly effective treatment of cancer and "not scientific." who attempted to use his methods in any
outlined in detail the case histories of fifty Meanwhile, the graves were filling up "ind of test. However, significantly success-
patients. Gerson's cancer diet was de- with the frightening and awful mutilations of ful reports were coming in from Belgium
scribed as saltless and low-fat, with pro- operating and X-ray rooms: those burned and Canada , where the treatment was
teins held to a minimum for a long period of and butchered victims turned out of hospi- being tested without interference. At the
time. The theory revolved around the 1dea tals to go limping hopelessly toward their Canad1an hearings, doctors test1fied abou t
that a healthy body would be able to fight f1na l rest, those poisoned victims of toxic us1ng Glyoxylide treatment for over four-
and defend itself against disease. This was chemotherapy whose every body cell had teen years and reported on terminal pa -
not a new 1dea. but 1t was approached by tasted the pa1nful effects of a full-sca le tients who became cancer-free. But perse-
Gerson in a very sc1entific way, with chemical assault. "Nothin-g more could be cution forced Koch to work in Mexico and
measunng of the effect of foods on the way done for them," said the medical estab- Brazil, where he was also con demned for
tile body function s. lishment. They had already had their his successful treatment of leprosy, tuber-
The Gerson d1et, 111 fact , was the logical checkups, sent in their checks, and culosis, and mental disorders. In 1941 he
outcome of the work of many cancer doc- traveled the same worn , one-way road to claimed to have produced a rap1d recovery
tors who had bravely opposed the pain and suffering and death. from dementia by inJection of Glyoxylide. A
mutilation of surgery s1nce 1764, when a representat1ve of a b1g pharmaceutical firm
Gerson d1ed in 1959 at the age of
London doctor ac tu ally mferred that then reapmg huge prof1ts from drugs for
seventy-seven. The man who cured Albert
surgery might contnbute to the growth of mental patients threatened to prevent Koch
Schweitzer's wife of tuberculosis and who
cancer rather than erad1cate it. Many doc- from remaining in Brazil.
was totally unrecognized by the medical
tors before Gerson had taken the view that
world was hailed at the end by Schweitzer: In 1942 and 1946 the FDA prosecuted
cancer was a disease of the whole body,
"We who knew and valued him mourn him Koch in two bitter trials, contending that his
and that nutntion helped the whole body to
already today as a med1cal genius who remedies were "indistinguishable from dis-
fight it.
walked among us. and as a man who was tilled water." A permanent injunction
In 1809 London doctor W1lliam Lambe
destined to be a f1ghter who proved himself against the Koch laboratory was granted in
published a ueatise advocating an anti-
in this adverse fate." 1950. After th1s several physicians were
cancer diet of fruits, vegetables, and pure
water, a diet whose value he eventually saw Today, thanks to a handful of courageous expelled from their medical societies for
as extending to the treatment of all di S- physicians whose names cannot be men- use of Glyoxylide-though the newspa-
eases. It is significant that many cancer tioned, Gerson·s work has not been buried pers published letters from their gratefully
therapists of the nineteenth century who with him. But the congressional investiga- cured patients. Such oppression finally de-
abandoned the practice of surgery also tion of the American Medical Association stroyed the Glyoxylide treatment as well as
recognized the curative va lue of a proper that everyone thought was so imminent in its courageous inventor. At present it is no
d1et. It is also true that the so-called official the early sixties has yet to occur. It is a longer being manufactured.
school regarded such thinking with such chilling fact that almost twenty years have The suppression of independent thought
aversion that to stress the nutritional ap- elapsed, and still the medical establish- is one reason why doctors today have be-
proach to cancer eventually became the ment wields the dogmatic power that has come fnghtened pawns of an overbeanng
surest way to be branded a quack. sent millions of Americans needlessly to system. They can't talk about their mis-
Max Gerson was repeated ly attacked, their painful deaths. Add to the list of sup- takes, because they simply can 't afford to
most violently by his own colleagues, and pressed cancer therapies such little known make m1stakes. Present-day physicians
his New York clinic fought to survive for names as the Coley Toxins, the Coffey- g1ve tests more than they do anything else:
many years. Cancer patients came to Ger- Humber Extract, the Glover Anti-Cancer they're pract1c1ng medic1ne defensively
son as a last resort. When - in many Serum, the Hoxsey Treatment, the Revici and badly. Afraid to look for any new
theone s, they are at best unscientific in sion of innovation in science has always cancer-causing additives to their foods.
their approach. Not only are today's doc- occu rred , from Galilee to Pasteur. But it has One of the first reports of 1FT's Expert Panel
tors wasting millions of dollars on obscure occurred with renewed ferocity since World was on nitrites . nitrates. and nitrosamines
research. but they are also wringing the last War II with the rise of the p owerful pet- (carcinogenic food additives and their de-
drops of blood from an innocent and docile rochemical industry. one of whose mem- rivatives found in processed meats). The
citizenry instead of protecting its health. bers has the temerity to use the slogan panel members emphasized that pro-
One of the most useful treatments eve r "Something we do will touch your life to- cessed meat contains only minute amounts
covered up by the medical establishment day " Indeed. this industry has not only of these carcinogens , but they totally omit-
was the Lincoln Bacteriophage Method, for touched but also invaded every aspect of ted the fact that similarly minute levels can
which Dr. Robert E. Lincoln was hounded to our lives, bringing with it more cause for cause cancer in animals.
his death in a merciless display of political disease. Such reports have staggering effects. in
power. Chemotherapy was hailed in press sto- view of the amount of control these "official
Lincoln identified bacterial stra ins as ries throughout the sixties and seventies as statements·· have in the media. Legislators
contributing factors in hundreds of perplex- the great new hope in cancer. with little and consumers reading such a report or
ing disease symptoms p laguing the human mention of the hideous si de effects of such any news articles based on it would cer-
body. symptoms ranging from tiredness to drugs and their power to induce cancer tainly be misinformed . And this simple mis-
leg cramps to mental depression to the and fatality themselves. But it was not until understanding can meanwhi le lead to
common cold - and. ultimately, to cancer. 1976 that reports of the cancer-causing cance r.
In the late fort1es. Lincoln isolated two such hazards of the standard anticancer drugs It's interesting to note that both 1FT and
strains of pathogens and with various dis- began to trickle into the popular press. In CAST favor the replacement of the Delaney
eases achieved a successful c ure rate by 1973 Dr. Dean Burk, head of the Cytochem- Amendment - the law that outlaws can -
using certain viruses (bacteriophages) istry Section of the National Cancer Insti- ce r-causing food additives- with a risk-
against them. One cured cancer patient tute. issued an open letter to then NCI di- benefit analysis that would pave the way for
was the son of Sen. Charles Tobey, who rector Frank Rauscher, charging that virtu- the use of carcinogens in accordance with
spread the word about Lincoln's therapy. ally all the conventional anticancer drugs "government established " (and most likely
In 1952. after Lincoln was expelled from had been found to cause cancer in NCI 's industry-influenced) tolerance levels.
the Massachusetts Medical Society, own studies. This story was enthusiasti- "Safe" levels are another myth that is
Senator Tobey became so incensed that he cally accepted by the general news editors perpetuated by a chemical industry look-
presented the particulars to Congress: (1) at Associated Press and Time magazine ing for any outlet to sell its products. Most
in 1946 the Journal of the American Medi- only to be killed by science and medical cancer experts agree that safe levels of
cal Association rejected Lincoln's paper on editors. carcinogens cannot be determined , be-
clinical results w1th his "antibiotics"; (2) in The food-processing industry, another cause of lack of scientific data, especially
1948 the same paper was rejected by the arm of the medical-drug complex. has data on humans. Besides. many doctors
New England Journal of Medicine; (3) in found today that a highly effective way to interested in cancer prevention point out.
1948 the director of a large Boston hospital promote consumer confidence in the food toxins can be compounded in the body
was "unable to find the time" to revi ew Lin- supply is to work with or create organiza- over a long period of time - in which case
coln 's work, after being invited to do so; tions composed primarily of academic sci- there is no safe level of exposure for any-
and (4) Lincoln's requests for assistance in entists. All industry needs to do is to assist - one .
publication were ignored by science edi· financially or otherwise - organizations of Will the 1FT and CAST panels let you
tors. industry-oriented academic scientists in know this? Many feel. they won't. because
After the influence of Senator Tobey was order to exercise a greater control over the they are hopelessly biased in the favor of
felt, Lincoln was personally brought before public as well as th e government. More industry. In fact , no "critic" is ever invited to
a study committee of the Massachusetts important, no newspaper or television re- or present to discuss "the other side." After
Medical Society - on the back porch of his p orter can accuse indu stry of serving its all the experts have agreed wit h one
own home. The committee agreed that a own corporate interests when it is the pro- another. an even more insidious event hap-
further study should take place, and Lin- fessors who are the spokespersons. While p ens: a completely vague report is care-
coln was overjoyed. legislators and reporters may think that fully written. Sentences are juxtaposed to
But t11en the dean of Boston University's statements by industry scientists are imply theses that are not scientifically ac-
Medical School, where Lincoln's bacterio- biased. they readily accept similar state- curate but that have the effect of adding
phage was prepared, informed Lincoln that ments from academic scientists as bei ng support to industry. Careful wording often
his viral supply had been cut off. It actually objective. hides the true meaning of some state-
required the pressure of congressmen to Two quasi-industrial scientific group s ments, as in the case of the nitrites state-
induce the dean to resume supplying the that you may have noticed in the news are ment above, in which much was omitted.
bacteriophage until another lab could be the Council for Agricultural Science and But in spite of all these b iases, CAST
set up. When the university lab turned over Technology (CAST) and the Expert Panel reports carry consi derable weight on Capi-
the viral strains to the newly c reated lab, the on Food Safety and Nutrition of the Institute tol Hill, and many are used to counteract
original strain was not present. Had it not of Food Technology (1FT). Both are "non- consumer arguments. Although CAST
been for the maintenance of this viral strain profit" organizations. Yet both send numer- views are thought of by many legislators to
in other places. Lincoln's production would ous !ask-force reports to Congress and be scientific and very soundly researched,
have been comp letely sabotaged. press releases to the media. Each of today many health, c ivil-rights . and con-
Finally, after an eight-month "study" in CAST's professional societies p ays an an- sumer groups regard them as one of the
1952, the Massachusetts Medical Society nual fee from $5,000 upward, based on its biggest threats against ca reful .decision-
rejected all evidence that Lincoln's treat- size. So far. dues from Dow Chemical, making in that collective process that af-
ment was beneficial. Lincoln died two Monsanto, Hottman- LaRoche, and ninety- fects all of our lives - government. Since
years later, after being expelled from the four other companies make up half of such panels often do not reveal their con-
society. The loss of an inexpensive, effec- CAST's income. nections to industry. many people consider
tive, and healthful cure to many chronic It isn't enough that these organizations them to be objec tive.
diseases is incalculable. Only today has have paved a road to questionable nutri- Obviously, one of the first steps in seek-
the Lincoln Bacteriophage Method come to tional practices for all Americans by plan- ing truly objective data is the unmasking of
be reinvestigated - caut iously ning "dietary programs" that are influenced these groups whenever possible - another
One may object that all of these events by the profit motive of the food and chemi- job that could and should be done by a
took place long ago and could never hap- cal industry; they have also minimized and respons ib le press. But to date not one of
pen today It is true that incredible suppres- even misled !he public on the problem of these organizations has been investigated
thoroughly by any member of the national d1rector of research at the American putting Manner on the unproven-methods
news media . Cancer Society-on the June 5, 1978. in- list for the 11me bemg.
The American Cancer Society lends its stallment of Gary Null's "Natural Living " This brings us to the case of Laetrile,
support to prominent science writer Jane show that Rauscher had told his father, Pat which today has become the central target
Brody of the New York Times. In 1977 she McGrady, Sr.. former science ed1tor of the of Amencan Cancer Soc1ety door-slam-
coauthored You Can Fight Cancer and Win ACS, that he would look into the Janker ming. The Amencan Cancer Society has
with Arthur Holleb, M.D.. vice-pres1dent of Clinic five years earlier. Pat wanted to know opposed Laetnle for twenty-five years ,
the American Cancer Society. In the same why nothing had been done. w1thout- so tar as is known:__ spending a
year, the society awarded Brody its media Rauscher repl1ed, "I invited people to dime of its money on resea rch to support its
award for "excellence in communications" send information into the National Cancer position. Any Ameri can physician using
for her gushingly prochemotherapy article, Institute or the American Cancer Soci- Laetrile on cancer patients can lose hospi-
"The Drug War on Cancer." ety. ... We never got 1t. I repeat that invita- tal pnvileges and even his license. Al-
As president of the American Society of tion now. We II take a look at 1t." Even af ter though there are well over a thousand
Journalists and Authors, science writer Pat th1 s confrontation. to the best of our knowi- American doctors using Laetrile or pre-
McGrady, Jr., tol d b roadcaster Barry edge there has been no response by the scribing it. very few of them ca n risk their
Farber in 1977: "Many of our medical writ- American Cancer Society to the Janker entire p ractice by open defense of th is
ers have a tendency to work with the estab- CliniC, wh1ch has repeatedly sent them in- method; thus very little is heard about it
lishment. to shoot for those thousand-dollar formation regard1ng 1ts clinical results. from doctors. This IS important in the matter
prizes offered by the establishment organi- As Patrick McGrady, Sr., summed 11 up. of influence on the public, because when-
zations. in addition to the fee that they get "Nobody 1n the science and medical de- ever Laetnle is discussed in the.national
from the magazine ." partments Iat ACS I is capable of doing real news med1a, the Establishment can easily
McGrady, Jr., whose father had resigned science. Th ey are wonderful pros who round up spokespersons who have many
from the American Cancer Society on rea- know how to raise money. They don't know degrees 1n med1cine. whereas the propo-
sons of principle. wrote a celebrated article how to prevent cancer or cure pat1ents; In- nents of Laetrile (publicly) are those dedi-
on the success with vitamin A and enzyme stead they close the door on mnovat1ve cated pat1ents. jOurnalists. volunteers, or
therapy for cancer at the Janker Clinic in ideas.'· sc1en tists whose degrees are not in
Bonn, West Germany. The piece. which According to the American Cancer Soci- med1cine.
many feel is one of the classics of American ety, " The ACS aids in crea t1on and Meanwhile. the offiCial statement of the
journalism. finally appeared in Esquire in strengthenmg of state laws to control worth- ACS carnes more weight because it is de-
April 1976, after ftve years of rejection by less cancer remed1es and tests. An active fended by those med 1cal doctors who
many other ma1or magazines. Why the file of informat1on on such new or unproven stand to lose noth1ng - and. 1ndeed to gain
turn downs? method s is mamtained. Thi s 1nformat1on 1s much-by align1ng themselves with the
"Because," said Pat, "it eventually got to available ... to physicians, science write rs, ACS. ''Laetrile . . . has received exhaustive
a place at the magazine wh ere a query was ed1tors, and the general publ1c to assist m tests in animals and never has shown any
sent to the American Cancer Society or evaluatmg cla1ms for unproven methods." effectiveness 1n the prevent1on. treatment.
somebody at the National Cancer Institute: or cure of cancer.· accord1ng to the ACS. Its
Th1s unproven-methods list IS 1n effect a
'What do you think about this idea?' And policy is to "totally re1ect Laetrile as a sub-
blacklist of remedies that include some of
they would say simply 'Well. if it's out-of- stance of any benef1t 1n the treatment of
the most prom1sing methods for control of
town, how can it be any good, because cancer.
cancer in the world today, among them
we've got the best right here in thi s coun - f'Jow that we have the "official position,"
milny dietary and nutri tional programs.
try? So forget about it.' .. let's look at the facts. The f1rst reports on
Once a treatment gets on th1s list, 11 be-
According to reports ·by doctors who Laetrile in the early 1950s- from the work
comes virtually 1mpossibfe for any of .1ts
have visited the Janker Clinic in Bonn. there of Drs. Ernest Krebs. Jr. and Sr (based on a
proponents to continue the1r research .
is a freedom for innovative ideas and new 1902 theory by Dr. John Beard} -showed
Grants dry up; doors to publications are
research in Germany that is not found in the that Laetnle had a definite effect on cancer.
closed. The unproven-methods list can be
sti fling atmosphere of American research. A 1953 study of Laetrile by the California
compared to the Index of Heresy 1n the
Said Dr. Harold H. Buttram in Choice mag- Cancer Commission concluded in for ty-
Catholic Church m medieval t1mes. It is a
azine: ··ouring my v1sit, I was often pos- four cases that there was no Objective evi-
fast and eff1c1ent way of dealmg w1th new
sessed with a sense of frustration in observ- dence of the control of cancer but ac-
remedies w1thout all the fuss and bother of
ing certain superior methods of therapy knowledged "increases in the sense of
"trials.''
which cannot be brought back legally to well-being and appetite. gain in weight,
America for care of pa ti ents here because Bu t it 1s nonetheless encouraging that and d ecrease in pain" in the Laet ri le-
of present laws .... I feel that tr1e majority of now- because of pressure by the puh- treated patients.
our doctors are dedicated and humanitar- !IC - two remed1es have been taken off this Meanwhile. doctors across the country
ian, but we have a system of health care in "list" and are bemg further investigated: the began to see results w1th Laetrile. The first
which 1nnovat1ve research has been stifled Coley Therapy and the L1ncoln Bac- successful International reports, which
and d1scouraged, and this can only lead to tenophage Method. This demonstates. if demonstrated the clm ical success of Lae-
stagna tion ." an ything. that the American Cancer Soci- tnle and appeared 1n newspapers all over
Sclld McGrady of the Janker Clinic in his ety has been Incompetent in its evaluations the world. were not reported in the Ameri-
Esqwre art1cle. "Here were two men IDrs. of new methods. In an emergency meeting can press. Also not reported was the 1966
Wolfgang Scheel and Hans Hoefer-JankerJ 1n June 1978. the ACS dec1ded to reevalu- d1scovery of a s1mple early-detection test
who were largely responsible for develop- ate the unproven-methods list and to re- for cancer. developed by Dr. Manuel D.
Ing four of the most potent ant1cancer move more therap1es from 11. AI the time. Navarro, professor of b1ochem1stry and
agents known to the medical world . . .. Yet 11 the ACS was plannmg to add a few more. therapeut ics at the Univers1ty of San To-
seems nothing short of scandalous that such as Dr. Harold Manner's v1tamin A en- mas. M anila. Navarro diSCovered thi s
neither the ACS nor the Nat1onal Cancer zyme and Laetnle treatment. which proved early-detect ion test through h1s studies of
Institute has been able to sp are a couple to produce total tumor regressiOn m 90 lhe theory beh1nd Laetnle. St1ll not a word
thousand dollars to send one Amencan in- percent of the ammals treated. (Note that from the Amencan press.
vestigator to Bonn to learn how . .. the Manner combmed the Janker Method w1th In 1963 Laetnle was prohibited in in-
Janker therap1es could save the lives of Laetrile ) According to Manner there have terstate commerce: and even books. in-
t11ousands of American cancer patients." been dramatiC resul ts in preliminary cluding Glen D. K11tlefs well-documented
McGrady also had a chance to remind human stud1es. W1th subsequent public Laetole: Control for Cancer. were coming
Frank Rauscher now v1ce-pres1dent and exposure of 1ts plans. the ACS has delayed back faster than they were bemg shipped
out. Why? The owners of drugstores. a vital In an article entitled "See How They Lie," public- relattons staff at Sloan-Kettering
outlet for p aperback hea!th books, had Burk presented statements by officials in who could not stand by and watch while
been notlfu3d that any druggist who dts- the news medta that Laetrile was "totally such suppressive ac tions were being
played Laetn le books would not receive without evidence" alongside positive ani- commttt ed Dr. Ralph Moss, former assis-
any more prescnptlons from the members mal ftndmgs. He wrote: "The facts are ... tant dtrector of public affatrs at Sloan-Ket-
of the AMA; moreover. the Federal Trade that positive, stalistically highly significant tenng. Moss made the revelation during a
Commission brought pressure against the anticancer activtty by Laetnle in animal press conference at the Htllon Hoteltn New
book publishers. tumor systems has been observed in at York on Novcm!Jcr 17. 1977. He was ftrcd
The ce nsorship went further. An ar- least five independent institut ions in three the next worktna day. And it was Moss. tn
rangement was made for pro-Laetrile rep- wtdely separated countries of the world, contunctton 1•.:t11 Gary Null on WMCA's
resentatives to appear on a major television with a wide range of animal cancers." "Natu ral Living." 1·:ho sttrred up the public
show. The show was canceled because the The Medi cal Establishment hadn't cmd the mcdtJ reporte rs.
network was told that if one minute of time counted on the power of the public. By the Finally. Slo:1n-Kc11enng retracted some
was given to a discussion of Laetrile, no 1970s, many people had become inter- of tis negalii'C c:~1ims. but only after the
member of the FDA or the AMA would ap- ested in al ternative health therapies, in- New York Acadc~1y of Sctcnccs. Sc1cnce
pear on the program in tho futuro. cluding diet and nutrition. Supporting a magazine. and Sloan-Kettering 's unclcr-
Pro-Laetrile representatives were inter- "freedom of choice" philosophy, 43,000 ground employee newspaper. Second
viewed by the New York office of the United people deluged President Nixon with peti- Op imon alona wtl h on outraged pub-
Press International. But no article ever ap- ti ons demanding clinical trials of this ltc-brougllt the credt btlity of the entire in-
peared . When the article was sent to the forbidden agent. These were forwarded to stitute into questton . It was also important
UPI office in Washington, it went to the Nixon's cancer advisor, Benno Schmidt . that Sugtur.J. one of the most respected
FDA-and never came out again. who told Science magazine, "When I an- researchers tn the world. stood by his find-
Whore is the press? American Cancer swer these !pro-Laetrile ] people and tell ings and enJb!ccf the entire world to sec hts
Soctety collaborator Jane Brody went into them that Laetrile has no effect, I would like results.
valiant act ton - but in the wrong direc- to be able to do so with some conviction .. Probably the most stgnificant result of thP
tton - tn the Now York Times of July 21, All of Schmidt's medical consullants were Sloan-Kettcnng expose was that 11 focused
1975. to scotch mtschievous rumors that anti-Laetrile, but when Schmidt tried to find worldwtde attcnuon on the polttics and ac-
positive results had occurred in animal scientific research to back up these anti- ttons of the mcdtcal establishment and on
tests of Laetnle at Sloan-Kettering Institute. Laetrile senttme nts, h e found that " I the posstbthty ol em alternative therapy for
Her arttcle clatmed that initial positive find- couldn't get anybody to show me his work. " ca ncer. Most tmpo rl ant. nutritionists. a
inas were "spunous results" and that all Schmidt therefore encouraged work to health-consctous publtc, courageous sci-
o!11cr animal studios at th e institute and be done on Laetrile, and in 1972 tests enttftc men. <md t11a organizations for Free-
elsewhere had shown no beneficial effect. began at Sloan-Kettering. The first actual dom o f Chotce tn Cancer Therapy have
Only the views of detractors of Laetrile were experimental work was done by Sugiura . come toget11cr to make cancer the politic81
quoted. and within two years he reported that it had issue of our time. By the spring of 1979.
There wore no comments from support- "a strong inhi bitory effect on the develop- twenty U.S. state legislatures had legalized
ing sc ientists, including Dr. Kanematsu ment of lung metastases." Moreover. "the Lactnle (also known as vt tamin 617) wit111n
Sugiura of Stonn-Kcttering. Readers would general health and appearance of the ... t11e1r borders. ollowtng for ti s use by doctors
not know that posiltvc nntmal findings had treated animals was much better than that and pattents AmJzmg ly. Laetn le became
recently boon reported in the scientific of the controls." one of the 11ottcst tssues in states· rigl1ts
literature-by Suatura in Science in 1973, since the Ctvtl War. and tl was the power of a
To Sugiura's surprise. his findings were
by George Brown, Jr., in Veterinary Medi- health-conscious public that began to turn
not released . In fact. Dr. Chester Stock,
cmc in February 1974, nnd by P G. Reit- the tables
Sugiura ·s supenor. told M edical World
n<Juer at the Institute von Ardenne in East
News in August 1975 (more than a year But the battle hos JUSt begun, and we
Germany m1973. They would not know that
after Sugiura had completed six posttivc have the wetght of almost two centunes o f
nil eight of Sugtura·s independent experi-
Laetrile expenments): " We have found suppresston to Ovt!rcomc. The work of tv~~
ments had found that Laetnle prevented
amygdalin !Laetnle I negative in all the Pauling. Lincoln. Koct1. and Gerson as weil
metastasts. or distnnt spread, of the tumor
animal systems we have tested." In April as that of t11c JJnl<cr Cltntc must no,,., be
cells. His results wore confirmed by Dr. brought to liCJhl. Thct r scientific evidenc:c
1975 Dr. Lewts Thomas , pre'Sident of
Franz Schmtd at Sloan-Kettering, the very
Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. must be rctnstJtcd ns tmportant findings
place that claimed that there never were
said, "Laetrile 11as shown after two years of t11at may well ntcl tn ftnding the solution to
any corroborative results. (This can now be
tests to be worthless in fighting cancer." Dr. cance r The nc·: , ftndings of Harold Manner
veriftcd in th e published report of the
Robert Good. president and director of must be brou~JI1t out as constitutina evi-
Sl oan-Kettering Institute's studies in the
Sloan-Kettering Institute, said in January dence of cl pnsstl)ic cance r cure. The un-
Journal of Surg1cal Oncology in 1978.)
1974, 'At this moment there is no evidence pr ovcn -motl1ods Its! o f the Americnn
It is also known that many of these find- Cancer SoctE'ty must be exposed as an
that Laetrile has an effect on cancer."
ings had been brought to Jane Brody's
Two months before this, it had been effectual black!t:l for tnnovative ideas thCJ l
attentton nt the New York Times, prior to the
found that pineapple enzymes combined arc bctng !Jrandcd ns heresy. We must
publicatton of the ar ticle. both by an insider
with Laetrile resulted in total tumor regres- allow tndtvtduJis \\hO 11ave been locked out
at Stoan-Kettcnng and by an outside sci-
sion in 50 percent of experimental animals. to share m t11c research money that is due
once wnter. But she chose to ignore the
These resul ts were independently obtained them tn thetr val:ant efforts.
information. In her arttcle Brody anathema-
tized defenders of Laetnle as .. cultists" for by two researchers: Dr. Lloyd Schloen and Rtght now our generals in the battle
attacktng a purport edl y negative study Dr. Elizabeth Stockert, both of Sloan-Ketter- agatnst cancer ~ rc tnept. The guns of the
from the Southern Research Institute. Yet ing. These experiments seem to anticipate medtcal-pclrochcmtcal complc-< arc
these critics tncluded Dr. Dean Burk of the the recent claims of Harold Manner that a pointed tn the 1\'IOnr:J dtrection-straight at
Nattonal Concer lnstttute, Dr. Bernard Ken- combination of Laetrile, enzymes, and vi- us We must clcm~.md our most inalienable
ton of Ctty of Hope Med tcal Center, and Or. tamin A has had a similar positive effect on nght. the ngl1t to life- and, therefore, to
W E. Deming. a leading statistician, who mice with cancer. health. Tl1c •hork tl1at has been done by
11ad found that the studtes in fact showed No one would know of the extent of courageous sctcnttsts wtll help us win the
clearly signi ftcant tn creased life-span with Sloan-Kett ering Institute's Laetrile results war v11thout a stnglc shot- or deadly "silver
LJetri le . today had 11 not been for one member of the bulle t. ·· ~

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen