What if I told you that solutions to prevent and cure cancer have been known for over a century? How would you react if I told you the solutions were very simple and easily accessible?

What if I said that powerful interests—corporations, institutions, and charities—have worked hard to keep this knowledge from you? Would you be surprised? Would you be skeptical?

Just by beginning to read this book, you likely possess an open mind with a healthy skepticism, and I applaud you for that because we ought to be skeptical of the things we read, no matter the source. In this book, I invite you to question the narratives we have been force fed about cancer, explore evidence you have probably never heard about before, and draw your own conclusions by seeing another side of the cancer subject that mainstream institutions refuse to discuss.

DISCLAIMER: I am a researcher, not a physician. I wrote this book for informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment in the legal sense. The content is intended to provoke thought and encourage independent investigation of medical issues. Readers are solely responsible for any decisions or actions taken based on the information in this book. I encourage you to conduct your own thorough research before making any health choices for you and your family.

Your health is YOUR responsibility.

It is a noble quality to be open to hearing information while maintaining reasonable caution to avoid being swayed by every wind of doctrine, ensuring a good understanding to remain on the narrow path of truth.

That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
-Ephesians 4:14

Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit
in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.
-1 Corinthians 14:20

Though these verses primarily address corrupt spiritual and religious doctrines, which are propagated by numerous fake preachers in the vast majority of church buildings worldwide, they also provide a broader principle of wisdom and discernment. Specifically, understanding the dangers of false teachings delivered by seemingly "nice" men (who wear suits and wield Bibles in pretense to gain money and respect) should lead us to exercise similar caution toward individuals in other professions who may use such deceitful tactics.

While some may think this health topic is distinct from my other works exposing the false doctrines of counterfeit Christians, the purpose of this book aligns with my previous efforts: to challenge the reader's philosophy (i.e. way of thinking). The only distinction is the subject matter, which I consider significant for reasons I will explore in greater detail in later chapters.

I have often grieved in my heart for those suffering from cancer and for those who have lost loved ones to it, while I have been angered by the vile lies and deceit of those who profit from cancer patients. Thus, my aim in writing this book is to arm readers with knowledge and to uncover the lies that have enslaved us all.

Please understand that I am not selling any remedy or even this book. Though I offer my books in printed format for those who wish to purchase them, this book, like all my work, is freely available to read on my website, creationliberty.com. If you bought a copy, I am grateful, but I provide it at no cost online because the Word of God instructs Christians to share wisdom, instruction, and understanding freely, and because we are called to charity in Jesus Christ. Thus, I offer my research freely so you can understand cancer, its harm, the solution, how we are healed, and why the cure has been suppressed for so long.

Buy the truth, and sell it not; also wisdom,
and instruction, and understanding.
-Proverbs 23:23

In this book, I will reveal both what the cure for cancer is and what it is not. I will demonstrate that chemotherapy is falsely named, as it provides no genuine therapy, and radiation "treatment" only damages your health and finances, enabling the elites who control medical institutions to profit from the trillion-dollar cancer industry they have constructed.

If you are reading this book because you have been diagnosed with cancer, I urge you to read it fully to gain a comprehensive understanding. There is hope for restoring your health, but you must unlearn the foundational beliefs instilled by mainstream institutions and renew your mind with a clearer perspective on your well-being. Please remain open to transforming your thinking and daily habits, and I pray your condition will improve in time.

Beloved, I wish above all things that thou mayest prosper
and be in health, even as thy soul prospereth.
-3 John 1:2

 

Before I can explain the cure for cancer, we need to define the term 'cancer' in a meaningful way, so we all understand what it is and how it works, but in face-to-face conversation, before I can begin to explain the cure, I have often had people quickly and fervently object by saying, "Why hasn't my doctor heard about this?!" In my experience, I have never been asked this question as a legitimate inquiry looking for information, but rather, it has always been asked as an accusation, which is a roundabout way of saying that there is no possible way I could know something that physicians and other "health experts" do not generally know.

This mindset mirrors what I encounter among many churchgoers. When I show them that their pastor teaches a false gospel on salvation—failing to preach repentance for the remission of sins as Jesus instructed (Luke 24:44-47), or, on the rare occasion they do, that they use an incorrect, unbiblical definition of "repent"—they refuse a calm, rational discussion. Instead, they defend their respect for his title and rank as a "pastor," which Scripture condemns as sin. They cannot fathom that someone without the prestigious office of a pastor could know more than he does, automatically dismissing me based on their reverence for a man's title or degree rather than the facts. Similarly, many people act like these prideful churchgoers, trusting a physician's word solely due to his status, not based on evidence, because they refuse to accept that they have been deceived by those they blindly trust.

My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons... But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.
-James 2:1-9

Sadly, this is among the most common sins committed by mankind, not just within church buildings, and most remain willfully ignorant of their guilt. Do not misunderstand, I am not claiming that most physicians intentionally scam people, but rather, physicians themselves have been deceived, as we will discover later in this book, and refuse to do proper research on the subject. Physicians often unknowingly perpetuate this deception onto their patients, who pay a heavy price due to their respect for a physician's status.

The fascinating thing about cancer is also the perplexing thing about it, which is that most people seem to ASSUME they know what cancer is, thinking that they understand it, but in reality, they cannot define it. If I were to ask someone what cancer is, a likely response would be "a disease," or "an illness," or "a tumor," but that is the same thing as you asking me, "Who is that man across the street?" and I answer, "a person;" that generic response tells you nothing about what distinguishes that man from anyone else.

So to address cancer appropriately, we need to be able to define what it is in the same way that to repair your vehicle, you must first be able to identify the problem. There are two terms we need to understand to categorize cancer:

chronic: continuing for a long time; recurring frequently
communicable: capable of being transmitted
(See 'chronic' & 'communicable', Random House Dictionary, 2024, [www.dictionary.com]; See also Collins English Dictionary, 10th Edition, William Collins Sons & Co, 2009)

To clarify, cancer is a disease that cannot be transmitted, either by touch or through the respiratory system (i.e. via the lungs), and it lasts for a very long time. For example, a common cold (also known as "coronavirus") can be contracted through direct or indirect contact with those who have it, which goes away after a few days of rest, and that means it is a "transient (or temporary) communicable" disease, so we cannot compare it to cancer because it does not match the same criteria.

In another example, AIDS (acquired immunodeficiency syndrome) is a chronic disease, but it is communicable, meaning that one can acquire it through the exchange of bodily fluids, which makes it different from cancer because cancer is noncommunicable. Throughout history, in worldwide records of disease in mankind, there has never been a "cure" invented to fix a chronic, noncommunicable disease, and yet, there are natural, easy-to-access solutions for nearly all of them.

This is where we need to start thinking differently because many chronic, noncommunicable diseases have, at some point in history, become widespread, reaching "epidemic" status in specific regions, but today, most people have never encountered or heard of anyone afflicted with these diseases. A prime example of an almost-extinct chronic, noncommunicable disease is scurvy.

In 18th-century Europe, scurvy was like the cancer of its time, a poorly understood disease with no known cure that claimed millions of lives. The British Navy, in particular, lost many sailors to scurvy annually. However, in 1753, Scottish physician James Lind published a book revealing that scurvy resulted from a lack of citrus fruit in the diets of those afflicted, showing that no "cure" was needed—it was simply a vitamin deficiency.
(See James Lind, A Treatise on the Scurvy in Three Parts - Containing an Inquiry Into the Nature, Causes, and Cure, of that Disease, Sands, Murray, and Cochran, 1753, retrieved Nov 13, 2024, [https://archive.org/details/treatiseonscurvy00lind/page/n5/mode/2up])

"Lind's study is cited as the first example of a scientifically controlled clinical experiment. His remedy was based on experiments made at sea on twelve sailors who had developed scurvy. Lind tested various supposed remedies by dividing the twelve sailors into six groups of two each... The most sudden and visible improvement occurred in the two who were fed oranges and lemons; one was fit for duty after just six days. In 1795, the Royal Navy began to provide an ounce of lemon juice for each man after his sixth week at sea. Although the dose was less than the amount recommended today, it was effective."
-Lawrence K. Altman, Who Goes First?: The Story of Self-Experimentation in Medicine, University of California Press, 1987, p. 396, ISBN: 9780520212817

In that day, the typical British sailor's diet consisted mainly of salty red meat, which lacked essential vitamins for a balanced, healthy diet, making a prolonged meat-only diet generally unwise. The author claimed Lind was the first to "discover" this so-called "cure," but the source of the problem had been identified multiple times before Lind's book. Lind conducted the first scientific study on the matter in 1747, yet Vasco da Gama found the solution in 1498, Richard Hawkins in 1593, Bartolomé Leonardo de Argensola in 1609, and John Woodhall (Surgeon General of the East India Company) in 1617; albeit, some of their remedies involved drying or boiling food, which destroyed most of the vitamin benefits, so keep in mind that fresh is always better.
(See Jamaica Rose & Michael MacLeod, The Book of Pirates: A Guide to Plundering, Pillaging and Other Pursuits, Gibbs Smith, 2010, p. 165, ISBN: 9781423614807)

Scurvy remained an "epidemic" for centuries because having citrus fruits on ships was not a widely accepted practice. At the time, it was cheaper to let sailors die than it was to procure fruit for long ocean journeys, so the epidemic continued for financial reasons rather than scientific, which is something I would ask readers to keep in mind because we will cover more on that later.

The following chart shows a list of chronic, noncommunicable diseases alongside the natural foods (and vitamins contained within those foods) that remedy those illnesses. Please note that these foods ought to be organically grown, non-GMO (i.e. not genetically modified), without pesticides or herbicides if at all possible:

DISEASE VITAMIN SCIENTIFIC NATURAL FOODS Scurvy C Ascorbic Acid Cherries, Rosehips, Peppers, Oranges, Lemons, Strawberries Rickets D Calciferol Liver, Raw Milk, Salmon, Tuna, Sardines Pellagra B3 Niacin Liver, Chicken, Tuna, Salmon, Anchovies Beriberi B1 Thiamin Liver, Beans, Salmon, Lentils, Ham, Mussels, Peas, Rice Night Blindness A Retinol Liver, Salmon, Eggs, Fish Eggs, Raw Milk, Cod Liver Oil

Note that the "cure" for these diseases is not found in a bottle, it is not crafted in a pharmaceutical laboratory, it does not demand chemical injections, nor does it require surgery. The remedy for these diseases is a simple fix that involves changing one's diet to get vitamin content the body is lacking, and this is sometimes referred to as "nutritional therapy."

In the corruption of American society over the past century, we now live in a culture where the average housewife of a physician often knows more about nutritional therapy than the physician himself. Even worse, many young women are forsaking their crucial role in the kitchen, turning to the laziness of frozen processed foods and losing their grandmothers' accumulated wisdom to the deception of mainstream "health" institutions. While many physicians claim knowledge of a healthy diet, most rely on deceitful mainstream "educational" sources as their guide, leaving only a minority with genuine nutritional understanding.
(Read Feminism: Castrating America here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

For example, in my book, Psychology: Hoodwinked by the Devil (which is free-to-read at creationliberty.com), I talked about Edward Bernays, who is labeled the "father of public relations," which is itself a public relations term because public relations is peace-time propaganda. In my book, I documented the devilish genius of Bernays in his effort to create the "All-American Breakfast" of bacon and eggs, which was never American until he used advertising agencies to convince the American people otherwise.

In an interview towards the end of his life, Bernays spoke about how, in the 1920s, he was able to get 4500 physicians to sign off on a general statement that a heavy breakfast was healthier than a light breakfast, and also endorsed bacon and eggs as part of a standard morning meal. The hidden reason Bernays did this was because Beech-Nut Packing Company hired him to solve their problem of low bacon sales, and thus, America's health standards were rewritten to help large corporations sell more of the pork products they desired to move.
(See Edward Bernays, "Edward L. Bernays Beech-Nut Packing Co," Barry Spector, Sept 12, 2014, retrieved Nov 13, 2024, [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vFz_FgGvJI])

I am not saying that it is wrong to have bacon and eggs for breakfast if you want, nor am I saying it is bad for everyone. It depends on your health conditions, daily habits, and physical constitution, but the purpose of the shift in diet had NOTHING to do with science and health, and had everything to do with propagating corporate sales through legacy media influence.

The food pyramid is entirely flawed, rooted not in science but in whoever paid the most to secure the largest piece of real estate on the pyramid. Despite this, federal "health" institutions forced this propaganda on millions of Americans, who were taught it in public school classrooms during the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. Grain companies like General Mills, the winners of this bidding war, secretly labeled people like me "cereal killers" for exposing their toxic products. I find it no coincidence that they chose a pyramid—a structure known for millennia to house the dead—as the shape for America's dietary guidelines.


Many other grocery companies were involved in backdoor deals to get their coveted spot on the food pyramid highlights, and it allowed for them to put new fancy "produce" logos on their processed-food product packaging. Chips and ketchup became part of the daily dose of vegetables, ice cream and chocolate pudding became part of "healthy" dairy consumption, and corn chips were classified as "pasta" (do not ask me how because I still have not figured it out), but despite objections from some physicians, from some of the general public, and even from some USDA insiders (who saw the pyramid as an upside-down representation of healthy eating and a waste of taxpayer money), the pyramid was published under the guise of being backed by science and medical researchers, all from our oh-so-benevolent benefactor, the United States Federal Government, who force you to fund such propaganda from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Health and Human Services (HHS), and the Food & Drug Administration (FDA), all of which (in this authors opinion) should be completely dismantled and it should be made unlawful to form such agencies in future generations.

Decades later, after much public outcry about the insanity of this diagram, the USDA changed the "Food Guide Pyramid" to something called "MyPlate," and in their arrogance, they could not help but attempt to justify their past actions by calling the fallacious and deceptive Food Pyramid "great for its time." However, even the new guidelines for healthy eating according to the USDA are WRONG, and in the following image, I have fixed "MyPlate" so that it looks the way it should, meaning that my image on the right is a much better depiction of what the average healthy diet should look like.
(See USDA, "What is MyPlate?" retrieved Nov 14, 2024, [https://www.myplate.gov/eat-healthy/what-is-myplate])

(Please note that all grains should be whole grains, which should be limited to 2-3 servings per day. This includes rice, bread, crackers, oats, etc. Do not fear a reasonable daily consumption of carbohydrates, especially if you are exercising to lose weight, because you need carbs to burn fat. Fruits and vegetables should be 5-9 servings per day. Your body also needs some fat and cholesterol, particularly for brain function.)

Remember that everyone's health and dietary needs are going to be different because no one will have the same needs due to a variety of factors. For example, I tend to have less grain because it provides the body with a lot of carbohydrates, and since I work in front of a computer most of the day, it would cause me to store up more unnecessary fat, but grains could be increased for someone who has a daily work routine that involves a lot of strenuous physical labor.

Circumstances can change a person's needs for certain foods over others based on age, height, weight, sex, geographical location, atmosphere, dietary history, medical history, activities, and more. However, there are basic principles regarding general nutrients that everybody needs, and so some things will never change, which is why the right-hand (i.e. my corrected) dietary guide in the above image is a better, generalized framework for your overall diet.

There are many more reasons for the manipulation of dietary data by the U.S. government that I will not be covering in this book, but one of the primary principles that readers should take note of is that most of these decisions are being made around a chemical philosophy, instead of a natural philosophy. The reason this is important is because naturally occurring substances, like vitamins and minerals, cannot be patented to secure profits, while synthetic substances created in a laboratory are patentable, and so what is lobbied for in government, and pushed in legacy media, are those substances for which companies hold patents.

This brings us back to the subject of cancer because it is a trillion-dollar industry. I mentioned all these things so that readers would understand that there are many evil people financially invested in keeping people sick so the money keeps flowing, and we will discuss more on that later in this book.

Let's imagine for a moment that you took your car to a mechanic to have it repaired because it was making a very loud clunking noise that would highly concern any driver. You leave it overnight, and come back the next day to pick up your vehicle, only for the mechanic to tell you that he lined the hood of your car with insulation to muffle the sound, so you would not hear the clunking noise anymore.

Would you be satisfied with the solution the mechanic offered, or would you object? The obvious answer is that you would object, and refuse to pay the bill, because the mechanic did not fix the problem; rather, he only masked the symptom.

The 21st century medicine cabinet in the average household is filled to the brim with chemicals and pills that mask symptoms instead of solving problems. For example, if you have a headache, you are often advised to take an aspirin, but was it the lack of aspirin that caused your headache? Has all of mankind throughout history suffered from aspirin deficiency? Taking an aspirin to fix your headache is like unplugging the "Check Oil" light on your car; you cannot fix a problem by masking the symptom.

Headaches, skin rashes, dizziness, soreness of joints—these are all symptoms of underlying problems in your body. Symptoms, though they make us feel bad, are a blessing in disguise because if we do not have these symptoms to warn us, then we will not know about problems that can potentially turn deadly over time, which is what often happens with cancer.

Before getting a cancer diagnosis, there are often a wide variety of dietary-related symptoms that have shown themselves over many years. Eventually, a tumor (i.e. a swollen part of the body) appears, and so-called "medical experts" will declare that the tumor is the cancer, but the tumor is the SYMPTOM of cancer, not the cancer itself.

Therefore, because "medical experts" (as well as patients) do not understand what cancer is, they also do not understand proper treatment for it, and will go to wild lengths, far beyond the realm of stupidity, to address the problem. For example, warts are considered (by medical classification) to be a type of tumor, and warts can appear on the hands, for which dermatologists will sometimes use liquid nitrogen as a solution:
"A dermatologist usually begins by scraping dead skin cells from the wart with a scalpel. This exposes more of the surface skin containing the virus to the freezing agent, which is liquid nitrogen... Liquid nitrogen-based removal is safe for most healthy people."
-Adam Felman & Deborah Weatherspoon, "What to know about freezing warts," Jan 10, 2023, retrieved Nov 14, 2024, [https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/320178]

It being considered a "safe" procedure does not automatically declassify it from being a "stupid" procedure. For example, soldiers during the American Civil War had their limbs cut off, and they were considered "safe" procedures because they saved the life of a man who would have otherwise died from his injuries. Using that criterion, we could conclude that amputating a man's leg is a "safe" procedure to protect him from a sprained ankle.

The general cause of warts is often a zinc deficiency in one's diet, meaning that if you discover warts, eating zinc-rich foods (e.g. avocado, beans, grass-fed beef, lentils, etc) will solve the problem in a short time:
"Reduced zinc levels may be associated with persistent, recurring warts. Several studies have shown resolution of warts with oral zinc sulfate supplementation over one to two months."
-Michelle Villett, "How to Get Rid of Warts," Reader's Digest Best Health Magazine, December, 2011, retrieved Nov 14, 2014, [https://web.archive.org/web/20151109232234/besthealthmag.ca/best-you/health/how-to-get-rid-of-warts#kYhtR2AdmOsCiBEy.97]

Once you understand that the solution is absurdly simple, it boggles the mind how we developed a demented culture that thinks liquid-nitrogen surgeries are a perfectly normal remedy, especially since it is not a permanent solution, and the warts often come back. Likewise, surgeons will slice open a cancer patient, cut out the tumor, and believe they have "cured" the cancer, but quite often, the tumors come back, and this is because people are hopelessly stuck in a loop of symptom-based medicine, instead of looking for the CAUSE of the cancer.

Today, there are numerous "ghost stories" about where cancer comes from because it seems to be a big mystery to doctors and our government institutions, and any explanation offered usually comes in the form of a boogeyman that lurks somewhere in the deep recesses of your genetic code that is unseen by modern science. What is fascinating to me is that this is EXACTLY the same attitude and approach physicians and government officials took with scurvy in the 18th century, claiming that it was a mysterious illness that lurked in the hulls of ships.

The American Cancer Society (ACS, a very corrupt organization that I will cover later in this book) tells us that, at the turn of the 21st century, almost 1 in 3 Americans got cancer. If that is true, then it would be best for us to quit relying on ghost stories from the pharmaceutical industry (i.e. Big Pharma), and start looking at the source of the problem.
(See Ahmedin Jemal & Rebecca Siegel, "Cancer Statistics, 2009," National Library of Medicine, DOI: 10.3322/caac.20006, retrieved Nov 14, 2024, [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19474385/])

Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths. Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the LORD, and depart from evil. It shall be health to thy navel, and marrow to thy bones.
-Proverbs 3:5-8

Cancer is a vitamin deficiency. So the obvious question is: What is the vitamin solution to cancer?



 

In the book of Genesis, the first chapter is about God's creation of the world, and when He created vegetables and fruits, He made seeds to go along with them, which would bring forth after their own kind:

And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
-Genesis 1:29

God told us that these would be "meat" for us, which is a word commonly used today to describe the flesh of animals, but the word 'meat' generally means "food," or anything eaten for nourishment. Therefore, the herbs and fruit were made for us to eat, as were the seeds of those plants.

Physician Neal Adams wrote a book in which he intended to help American readers heal their vision through nutrition, which is admirable, and I am sure there are plenty of good, helpful tips in his book. However, he made a critical error, which is largely due to the brainwashed education he received from mainstream medical institutions:
"True, fruits and vegetables also don't come with any warning label. The difference is that humans have had thousands of years of experience with fruits and vegetables—we know that apples are safe but don't eat the apple seeds. We may not know that apple seeds are full of a chemical called amygdalin that is converted by our gut enzymes into cyanide—we just know from our ancestors that it's a bad idea to eat them."
-Neal Adams, Healthy Vision: Prevent and Reverse Eye Disease through Better Nutrition, Rowman & Littlefield, 2014, p. 27, ISBN: 9781493016280

As we are about to learn, Adams is correct in some of his assessments about apple seeds, but he is dead wrong in his recommendation to not eat them. Before I get into the details, I would like to remind readers who have been born again in Jesus Christ to always remember what you believe, meaning that if you believe the Holy Scriptures to be the Word of the Living God, then you should trust in that which He wrote, and not in your own understanding, as indicated in Proverbs 3:5-8, which I quoted at the end of the previous chapter.

One of the reasons that people will turn away from books like mine is because I do not have all the fancy degrees and certifications that physicians do, and they are far more apt to take a physician at his word, instead of looking at alternative views. This is understandable to a degree, as most people do not have enough time in their day to do intricate research on every subject of interest, and so at some point, we all have to end up taking others at their word in some circumstances. However, to say that Adams is correct on the subject of seeds because he is a physician, and I am incorrect because I am not a physician, is an example of the sin called "respecting persons," which I mentioned in the previous chapter.
(Read "Respecting Persons is Sin" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin,
and are convinced of the law as transgressors.
-James 2:9

I am certainly not saying that physicians should not be listened to, but I am saying that we should listen to all sides of a matter to determine the truth, while at the same time, do our best to stop automatically believing everything we hear just because someone has a college degree or wears a white lab coat. There is a reason it is called "practicing medicine," because medicine is not the same for every person, requiring trial, error, and adaptation at many levels, which is why we are often told to "seek a second opinion," and I hope this book will be that second opinion for some readers.

Part of the reason Adams claimed seeds are bad for you is because he goes to the American Medical Association (AMA), which he believes should be highly regarded. Adams is but one of many physicians who do the same. However, the AMA has a long-standing history of rejecting good medicines, while adopting bad medicines such as pharmaceutical drugs and radiation treatments, and we will cover more on those later.

Over a century ago, a very important discovery was made by Ernst T. Krebs:


Krebs was a physician and graduate pharmacist in Nevada, and his first major breakthrough was made when studying the Washoe Indian tribe's herbal remedies. From that study, Krebs created what is known today as "leptonin," which helped save nearly 100 of his patients who were suffering from bacterial disease, and yet, despite his success, the supposedly "reliable" and "prestigious" Journal of the American Medical Association (AMA) ignored his findings and labeled him a "quack" doctor, which tarnished his reputation and buried the life-saving discovery for decades to come.

To this day, mainstream authors and medical institutions condemn Krebs as some sort of heretic against the AMA church of medicine. They still avoid informing the public that in 1953, almost 40 years later, scientists at the University of Utah School of Medicine published "Studies on Antibiotic Extract of Leptotaenia," and admitted Dr. Krebs's findings were accurate by doing their own study to prove he was correct and the AMA was wrong.
(See G.A. Matson & A. Ravve, "Antibiotic Studies on an Extract From Leptotaenia Multifeda," Sept 28, 1949, DOI: 10.1172/JCI102176, retrieved Nov 15, 2024, [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC438922/]; See Journal of American Medical Association, Nov 1920, Vol. 75, No. 19, p. 1299; See also H. J. Carlson & H. G. Douglas, and H. D. Bissell, Journal of Bacteriology, May 1948, Vol. 55, p. 607-614)

For example, Princeton University's James Harvey Young wrote a heavily biased critique of Krebs in a book called American Health Quackery. He made scathing accusations against Krebs, claiming that he was just a lone wolf snake-oil salesman trying to get rich quickly, but in his lengthy chapter on Krebs, Young conveniently omitted any information that Krebs' findings were later verified by other scientists to be true.
(See James H. Young, American Health Quackery: Collected Essays of James Harvey Young, Princeton University Press, 1992, p. 205-255, ISBN: 9781400862917; retrieved Nov 15, 2024, [https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt7ztx5d.18])

Physicians struggle to find information on these topics because the truth is suppressed by the very medical institutions and universities they blindly trust. Although Krebs is branded a "quack" by the AMA and other corrupt medical entities, even if physicians learn that he discovered high concentrations of a unique vitamin in the seeds of certain fruits and herbs—absent in most other foods—they dismiss him due to their reverence for those who have condemned him.

While Krebs was studying natural remedies for bacterial disease (along with studying the work of Professor John Beard, who linked cancer to enzymes), he picked up an interest in studying cancer. While investigating the culture of the Washoe Indians, as well as other native tribes, Krebs noticed that they did not have the same cancerous diseases that white men had, so his prior experience with leptonin led him to look for a cure in natural herbs and other foods that they regularly consumed.

This research was later completed by Krebs's son, Ernst T. Krebs Jr., who studied anatomy and medicine at Hahnemann Medical College for three years, received his bachelor's degree in bacteriology from the University of Illinois, and did his graduate work at the University of Mississippi and the University of California. This should be noted so that readers do not get the impression that Krebs and his father were just uneducated charlatans, which is what mainstream medical institutions imply. Krebs Jr. picked up his father's work (as well as Professor Beard's) and made many discoveries, the most important of which was amygdaline, also known as vitamin B17, which is found most commonly in the seeds of fruits and vegetables.

Physician John Richardson spent a lot of time talking with Krebs Jr., and he summarized what he learned:
"Basically the theory Krebs advanced is that cancer is not caused by some strange invading force from outside the body, but rather by malfunctions of normal mechanisms solely within the body itself. Those malfunctions are the result of a deficiency in a chemical substance found in certain foods and of a deficiency in certain enzymes produced in the pancreas."
-John A. Richardson, Laetrile Case Histories: The Richardson Cancer Clinic Experience, Bantam Books, 1977, p. 5, ISBN: 0553114913

Krebs Jr. went on to develop a concentrated pill of B17 he named "laetrile," and for those of you who have never heard of laetrile, you might be intrigued, but for those of you who have heard of it, you might know that most physicians immediately condemn it as a dangerous, heretical poison that will kill you. This is because most physicians have been (albeit unknowingly) brainwashed by medical institutions so they will not look into it, and if they tell you they have "researched" it, what they likely did was look up an online AMA database, and simply regurgitated the AMA propaganda back to you, but they did not do any actual research on it themselves.

I grew up living in a small apple orchard, and when I was a boy, I remember being told an old wives' tale by the adults around me that I should not eat the apple seeds because they were poisonous, and so naturally, I heeded that warning. However, as I got older, I realized that we eat seeds from plants all the time (e.g. nuts, beans, etc), which led me to consider why I was told this, and where the information originated because, later in my life, I ate apple seeds, as well as seeds from many other fruits, and nothing harmful ever happened to me.

Scientists studying fruit seeds found that they contain cyanide, and cyanide kills people, therefore, they concluded that if you eat seeds, you will die from cyanide poisoning. As straight-forward as that might seem, it is a rather childish interpretation of the facts. I can assure you, as a man who has eaten many apple seeds (as well as other fruit and vegetable seeds), I am writing this book alive and healthy, with no traces of cyanide poisoning, and the scientific community is welcome to test me for cyanide if they are baffled by this miracle.

Nearly every substance in this world can be deadly to the human body if not consumed in the correct form to make it nutritious. For example, chlorine is deadly to the human body if you consume it, but millions of Americans consume sodium chloride every day, which is more commonly known as "table salt."


Oxygen will strengthen fire, and hydrogen will make a fire explode, so if your house is on fire, it would be foolish to spray oxygen or hydrogen on it. However, that is precisely what every fireman in the world does because they use both substances combined into something we call H₂O, more commonly as "water."


If you were hungry, and I offered you a tablespoon full of salt, or baking powder, or flour, or butter, you would not be interested, and in fact, most of you would find that disgusting, and the AMA would not recommend eating these by themselves in moderate quantity. However, if we combine them in the right way, we can make biscuits, which are pleasant to the taste and nutritious for the body.


I am using these examples to help readers convert their philosophy (i.e. their way of thinking) to understand that context matters greatly when it comes to health and food. To understand why consuming cyanide is healthy, we have to change the faulty philosophy that we have been taught by the corrupt corporate media and greedy health institutions.

Amygdalin, or B17, is two units of glucose (sugar), one unit of benzaldehyde, and one unit of cyanide. Many people know cyanide and benzaldehyde can be deadly if consumed individually in significant quantities, but in the chemical combination found in seeds, the components are inert.

inert (adj): having little or no ability to react
(See 'inert', Random House Dictionary, 2024, [dictionary.com]; See also Collins English Dictionary, 10th Edition, William Collins Sons & Co, 2012)

This means that cyanide and benzaldehyde are sealed away in the B17 compound, sort of like being inside a chest that is locked, and they have no effect on your body unless something first has the key to unlocking it. This B17 chest has only one key that can unlock it, and it is a special enzyme called "beta-glucosidase," which some readers will be surprised to learn can only be found in one place in the known world: cancer cells.


Beta-glucosidase is the key to unlocking toxic chemicals, but not only is beta-glucosidase quite rare, it requires a large amount of beta-glucosidase to open the B17 chest of cyanide and benzaldehyde. Cancerous cells produce hundreds of times more beta-glucosidase "keys" than any other cell in your body, and so once B17 comes in contact with a cancerous cell, it unlocks the "chest," causing benzaldehyde and cyanide to combine and form a poisonous substance that destroys the cancer cell, and only at that location, then after the reaction, the toxic chemicals become nutritious for your body.


Some readers may be concerned that a cancer patient eating seeds might have the rest of their body harmed by chemicals like benzaldehyde, but the benzaldehyde oxidizes when it comes in contact with the oxygen in a normal cell in your body, and is converted to benzoic acid, which many Americans consume on a regular basis because it is found naturally occurring in many plants and used as a preservative in products like dried fruit, toothpaste, and dog food, just to name a few. Benzoic acid even has antiseptic properties, which means it will not damage your healthy cells, but cancer cells are devoid of oxygen (which is what causes them to ferment and become dangerous to your body), so once benzaldehyde comes into contact with the cancer cell, it works to destroy the parts of the cell that are harmful, and then oxidizes the affected area.
(See R.H. Goshorn & P.A. Tetrault, "Antiseptic and Bactericidal Action of Benzoic Acid and Inorganic Salts," Purdue University, p. 646, retrieved Nov 15, 2024, [https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ie50342a009])

Concerning cyanide, all healthy cells in your body have a natural protective enzyme called rhodanese, which will break down tiny traces of cyanide so it becomes harmless to your body, but cancer cells are void of rhodanese, which means the cyanide can only work to destroy the disease. After the cyanide kills off the cancer cell, it is converted into a substance called cyanocobalamin, which is a compound of vitamin B12, and it improves metabolic processes that are important for cancer patients. (And we will learn more about the importance of metabolism in chapter nine.)
(See Dr. Ross Pelton & Dr. Lee Overholser, Alternatives in Cancer Therapy, 1994, p. 155, ISBN: 9781439146613; See also G. Edward Griffin, World Without Cancer, 18th Edition, March 2006, p. 86-91, ISBN: 9780912986197)

John Richardson explained it another way:
"The enzyme factor is equally important, and it is probable that it and the food factor were intended to work together. Basically what happens is this. The enzyme trypsinogen is converted to trypsin in the intestine and there, along with chymotrypsin, is utilized in the digestion of animal protein. The surplus is absorbed into the blood stream and serves to digest, or dissolve, the protein coating that protects the cancer cell from the attack of the body's white blood cells. Once this is done, the white cells move in on the cancer cells and destroy them just as if they were foreign invaders to the body. But once again, if the pancreas is weak, or if it is 'exhausted' by metabolizing too much sugar, or if the diet contains too much animal protein, then the enzyme is deficient for the job nature has cut out for it."
-John A. Richardson, Laetrile Case Histories: The Richardson Cancer Clinic Experience, Bantam Books, 1977, p. 5, ISBN: 0553114913

This is why, in the first chapter, I emphasized my restructuring of "MyPlate" to include much in the way of fruit, dairy, fats, and vegetables, which should make up about half of your normal diet. As Richardson rightly pointed out, too much sugar (most especially the unnatural processed sugars found in most American grocery products) will burn out the enzymes in the pancreas, which leads to the cancer symptom of tumors, and that is why your overall diet is just as important as eating foods rich in B17.

In summary, consuming large amounts of cyanide or benzaldehyde would likely be fatal or cause severe harm, but when bonded within the B17 molecule, these substances selectively target and destroy cancerous cells in the body, then become neutralized through a natural chemical reaction, becoming nutritious. Later in this book, we will explore why this simple cure has been suppressed and condemned by mainstream medical institutions, but first, for readers willing to take this seriously, you are likely eager to learn how to incorporate B17 into your diet...



.

In 1933, author James Hilton wrote a fictional novel, Lost Horizon, describing a mystical valley called "Shangri-La," reputed to hold a fountain of youth that extended lifespans. Few today realize this legend exaggerated a real valley called "Hunza," which lacks any fountain of youth, but possesses a unique culture offering interesting clues to longevity.

In 21st-century America, despite its technological advancements, the average age of death is around 79, largely because many individuals are sustained by machines that prolong life in a state of misery. Americans often endure painful deaths from chronic diseases, suffering greatly in their final years. In contrast, the Hunza people have an average lifespan of about 100, with the oldest man (based on my research) reaching 165 years, and unlike in American society, men typically outlive women by 10-20 years, remaining active in youthful daily tasks into old age, until they pass away peacefully in their sleep, and without warning because they participate in daily work normally without medical complications.

(See Vegetarian Times, "How People of Hunza Live To Be in Supreme Health," October, 1984, Issue #86, p. 13, ISSN: 01648497)

Hunza Valley is roughly 8000 ft (2400m) above sea level in the mountains between China, Afghanistan, and India, but today, it has been absorbed into Pakistan. This valley is quite difficult to reach, which made it a secluded location that only the most daring mountain climbers could discover until the invention of flight, and this kept their culture away from the influence of others, and from the effects of war.


According to Hunzakut legend, the community of the valley began when a small group of soldiers deserted the army of Alexander the Great, and escaped into the mountains with their Persian wives. For centuries, their descendants fought off any invaders, and they pirated traders who sought passage through their land, until the turn of the 20th century, when the leader of the Hunzakuts made peace with the surrounding nations, and that peace has been kept ever since.
(See Renée Taylor, Hunza Health Secrets For Long Life and Happiness, Keats Publishing, 1978, p. 21-22, ISBN: 9780879831899)

Researcher Renée Taylor traveled to the Valley of Hunza in the 1970s to live among the people and learn about their unique culture. While she was there, Taylor witnessed women in their 90s who would squat for hours in front of a stove cooking without any physical struggle, and she also witnessed a 145-year-old man jumping for a catch while playing a Hunza version of volleyball.
(See Renee Taylor, Hunza Health Secrets For Long Life and Happiness, Keats Publishing, 1978, p. 63, ISBN: 9780879831899)

(Photo by Renée Taylor, Hunza Health Secrets For Long Life and Happiness, Keats Publishing, 1978, p. 118, ISBN: 9780879831899)

Some readers may dismiss this as mere hyperbole or fantasy, but such a close-minded stance stems from a prideful heart unwilling to consider ideas beyond their upbringing. The issue with many Americans is that modern technology has bred arrogance, leading them to scorn those without such advancements, even though we are statistically surpassed by societies free from our epidemics. English surgeon Robert McCarrison set aside pride as he observed numerous Asian men, women, and children fall to disease, and he sought to uncover the causes.

In 1927, McCarrison was made the Director of Nutrition Research in India, and he ran some experiments based on the diet of the Hunzakut people. He tested albino rats, raising them from birth to 27 months on only the Hunzakut diet, which consisted of wholemeal flour chapatis (similar to a French crêpe), fresh butter, legumes, raw carrots and cabbage, raw milk, and some meat, with water to drink, and he also kept them in healthy atmospheric conditions, having plenty of fresh air and sunlight in a clean environment.

McCarrison reported his findings:
"During the past two and a quarter years there has been no case of illness in this 'universe' of albino rats, no death from natural causes in the adult stock, and, but for a few accidental deaths, no infantile mortality. Both clinically and at postmortem, examination of this stock has been shown to be remarkably free from disease. It may be that some of them have cryptic disease of one kind or another, but if so, I have failed to find either clinical or microscopical evidence of it."
(See Robert McCarrison, quoted by Renee Taylor, Hunza Health Secrets For Long Life and Happiness, Keats Publishing, 1978, p. 69-70, ISBN: 9780879831899)

McCarrison went one step further to test if people could get well on this type of diet. He put a group of diseased rats in the same conditions on the same diet as the Hunzakuts, and slowly, they were healed of all disease.

To be sure of his findings, he took the healthy rats and placed them in living conditions and diets of those who lived in Indian cities. These rats quickly developed boils, ulcers, visual impairments, tooth decay, crooked spines, hair loss, anemia, skin disease, kidney deterioration, gastrointestinal disorders, and heart failure.

"In later experiments, McCarrison gave a set of rats the diet of the poorer classes of England: white bread, margarine, sweetened tea, boiled vegetables, tinned meats, and inexpensive jams and jellies. On this diet, not only did the rats develop all kinds of disease conditions, but they became nervous wrecks: 'They were nervous and apt to bite their attendants; they lived unhappily together, and by the sixteenth day of the experiment they began to kill and eat the weaker ones amongst them."
(See Renée Taylor, Hunza Health Secrets For Long Life and Happiness, Keats Publishing, 1978, p. 70, ISBN: 9780879831899)

Anyone who lived in early 21st-century America will find this scenario quite familiar because the rats under this same American diet act similarly to those Americans who live on that diet. In fact, the problem is FAR worse in early 21st-century America because people are addicted to processed, high-sugar, greasy foods that, with long-term exposure, result in disease and death; not only in bodily deterioration, but heavily increases mental stress in some people, opening them up to commit violent acts they would not otherwise attempt.

We will get back to the cancer topic soon, but it is imperative for readers to understand that once a person has contracted cancer, their diet and living conditions have deteriorated into a wide range of problems that all need to be fixed. Although B17 can stop and reverse the spread of cancer in the body, it will not do so unless your body has a balance of other nutrients to get the job done, and B17 alone will not solve overall health decay.

In my day, Americans have adopted many harmful habits due to apathy, only showing concern and motivation when their health deteriorates to life-threatening levels. For this reason, I hope young men and women will study diet, exercise, and cleanliness to help them and their families live longer, more peaceful lives, and in chapter nine, I will detail how to begin that process.

To briefly give an example of how health standards have crumbled in our nation, let's take a look at the Bible, which tells us God gave men bread to strengthen our hearts:

He causeth the grass to grow for the cattle, and herb for the service of man: that he may bring forth food out of the earth; And wine that maketh glad the heart of man, and oil to make his face to shine, and bread which strengtheneth man's heart.
-Psalm 104:14-15

Whole wheat grain is extremely beneficial for heart health, yet in early 21st-century America, we strip away its nutritious parts, producing a "bread" that contributes to obesity and disease. The outer layer of wheat, known as 'bran', gives bread its brownish hue, but commercial kitchens remove it to create an appealing white color. The grain's reproductive seed, called the 'germ', is also discarded by corporate manufacturers during flour processing, eliminating the vital, anti-inflammatory vitamin E and Omega-3 fatty acids essential for heart and brain health.

Why remove the bran and germ? Simply put, it makes bread look pretty on store shelves, but I firmly believe our health is too steep a price to pay for looking stylish.

Some people may argue that bread from commercial kitchens gets artificially enriched with nutrients, but how insane have we become in that we take a long way around the process to remove the naturally occurring nutrients in favor of inferior synthetic replacements? Furthermore, keeping the bran and germ means the bread will go bad much faster, which reduces its shelf life, and therefore, bread manufacturers will lose money, or in broader terms, health epidemics continue in the name of profit.

Although the Hunzakuts have plenty to eat, they must work hard every day to ensure they have enough food because food is scarce in their environment. This not only means they get plenty of exercise by cultivating the land daily, but it also means their survival depends on consuming every edible part of the food they produce.

Their most abundant and valuable fruit is the apricot, and the apricot tree is highly revered in their society. Author Allen Banik wrote of his experience traveling to Hunza in the 1950s:
"The importance of the apricot in the Hunza economy is suggested by the fact that the trees are regarded as valuable property which, on the death of the owner, is willed to a favorite son or other relative. To own an apricot tree is an indication of affluence, and the local maidens cast covetous eyes on swains [a male admirer] fortunate enough to boast ownership of such a prize."
-Allen E. Banik, Hunza Land: The Fabulous Health and Youth Wonderland of the World, Whitehorn, 1960, p. 123

The value of the trees in Hunza culture is so great that even though women are forbidden from owning property (due to the fact that women do not possess the physical strength to till it, maintain it, and defend it, which is why men have traditionally owned property, since men have to take full responsibility for it), Hunza women could be granted ownership of individual apricot trees on someone's property. Apricots are not only eaten in various ways (raw, dried, and cooked), but also made into oil, which is not only consumed, but also used for frying food, cleaning silver, and beauty care for face and hair.

Banik asked his Hunzakut guide for more details about their use of apricot seeds:
"The guide informed me that many are stored but most of them are ground very fine and [then] squeezed under pressure to produce a very rich oil. 'This oil,' my guide claimed, 'looks very much like olive oil. Sometimes we swallow a spoonful of it, when we need it. On special days, we deep-fry our chappatis in it. On festival nights, our women use the oil to shine their hair. It makes good rubbing compound for body bruises. We also shine silverware with it.'... I learned later that apricot oil actually will shine silver."
-Allen E. Banik, Hunza Land: The Fabulous Health and Youth Wonderland of the World, Whitehorn, 1960, p. 124

Although apricots are not uncommon in America, they are not used as frequently as other fruits, and there is one particular part of the apricot that Americans almost never consume: The seed. Keep in mind that the core of the apricot is not the seed, but rather, if you crack open the hull, there is a nut (or kernel) inside, and these seeds are eaten daily in Hunza culture, either raw or in various dishes, and are considered to be the most flavorful part of the fruit.


After what we learned about B17 in the previous chapter, readers will be interested to learn that:

The highest known concentration of B17 in the world is found in the seeds of apricots.

Nitrilosides (another term for B17) can be found in various seeds and herbs, but the greatest abundance is found in the apricot kernels that are frequently consumed by the Hunzakuts, and with the exception of those who have left Hunza Valley to live in other parts of the world and eat a diet of processed foods, the Hunzakuts have never had a case of cancer among their people. In his report of various tribal people living in the Himalaya Mountains, specifically the region of Gilgit, where the Hunzakuts live, McCarrison observed:
"We see, then, that as exemplified by certain Himalayan races and, as I find from recent reports in the medical press... enforced restriction to the unsophisticated foodstuffs of Nature is compatible with fertility, long life, continued vigor, perfect physique, and a remarkable freedom from digestive and gastrointestinal disorders, and from cancer... the two chief causes of disease and death are food and drink."
-Robert McCarrison, The Journal of the American Medical Association, Jan 7, 1922, Chicago, IL, Vol. 78, No. 1, p. 3, retrieved Nov 22, 2024, [https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015082605745&seq=15]

University of North Carolina professor Lewis Aiken studied the Hunza and wrote:
"Individuals having long life spans are found in sizable numbers among the Hunza people in the Karakoram Range of the Himalayas, the Abkhasians of the Russian Republic of Georgia, and the Vilcabambans of Ecuador. Nearly 50 of every 100,000 people in the Caucasus region of Russia, compared with about 5 in 100,000 Americans, reportedly live to be 100 or more. Birth records of the Hunza are more difficult to obtain than those of the Abkasians and the Vilcabambans, but UNESCO data indicate that the Hunza are the only people in the entire world who are completely free of cancer."
-Lewis R. Aiken, Aging: An Introduction to Gerontology, SAGE, 1995, p. 15, ISBN: 9780803954458

Banik also wrote about the absence of disease in Hunza:
"I was most strongly impressed by the evidences of good health I witnessed among the Hunzukuts of all ages. Their freedom from a variety of disease and physical ailments was remarkable. Cancer, heart attacks, vascular complaints and many of the common childhood diseases such as mumps, measles and chicken pox are unknown among them. I am convinced that the diet upon which these people have lived for centuries is responsible for the enviable good health they enjoy."
-Allen E. Banik, Hunza Land: The Fabulous Health and Youth Wonderland of the World, Whitehorn, 1960, p. 173-174

There are many explorers and researchers who have all come to the same conclusion about the Hunzakut culture, that they live much longer, healthier, and more energetic lives, without diseases such as cancer. There are many men in their society who live over the age of 100, and still speak and work like they were 35.

(See Vegetarian Times, "How People of Hunza Live To Be 120 in Supreme Health," April, 1985, Issue #92, p. 3, ISSN: 01648497)

The consumption of foods rich in nitrilosides (B17) is not limited to mankind because animals also rely on these foods, else they will contract cancer, and many pets who live on modernized diets frequently get cancer, among many other illnesses. However, studies have shown that wild animals almost never contract cancer:
"Another consideration to which I have previously called attention is, that these abnormalities very rarely affect organisms living in a state of nature. It is almost exclusively among domesticated varieties, among those that have been kept long in confinement, or that have been otherwise abnormally circumstanced, that tumours are met with; thus, in savages and wild animals, tumours very rarely occur."
-William R. Williams, The Natural History of Cancer: With Special Reference to Its Causation and Prevention, William Wood and Company, 1908, p. 87, retrieved July 22, 2025, [https://archive.org/details/naturalhistoryof00williala/page/86/mode/2up]

Although this author's bias leads him to call them "savage," people and animals who eat a more natural diet do not have the same problems of disease that "sophisticated" cultures suffer. In fact, 2017-2019 data from the National Cancer Institute says that 40.5% of Americans will contract cancer at some point in their lives, and farm animals today would likely be at that same rate if they lived as long, but they are often slaughtered for meat instead of kept for their natural lifespan.
(See National Cancer Institute, "Cancer Statistics," retrieved Nov 27, 2024, [https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/understanding/statistics])

"Recent observations [in the early 20th century] as to the relative frequency of malignant tumours in the latter, show that these maladies are not so rare as was formerly believed: thus, Veterinary-Inspector Trotter found that of 47,362 cattle, slaughtered at Glasgow in 1903, 131 had some form of malignant tumor, or 2.8 per 1,000, the corresponding ratio for English humanity being about 60 per 1,000. All the indications at the present available point to the great rarity of cancer in wild animals,"
-William R. Williams, The Natural History of Cancer: With Special Reference to Its Causation and Prevention, William Wood and Company, 1908, p. 88, retrieved July 22, 2025, [https://archive.org/details/naturalhistoryof00williala/page/88/mode/2up]

It should be noted that wild animals sometimes get cancer, but it is often associated with animals that eat foods from modernized dumpsters, or sadly, as a result of irresponsible chemical disposal from modern factories. For example, the Australian turtle population had a cancer epidemic that was caused by large amounts of toxins seeping into the water, but those turtles do not contract cancer while living in natural habitats that are unaffected by men.
(See Live Science, "Cancer Kills Wild Animals Too," June 24, 2009, retrieved Nov 27, 2024, [https://www.livescience.com/9680-cancer-kills-wild-animals.html])


Animals have a natural instinct, given to them by God, to seek out foods that are necessary for their health. For example, we have a dog that, when he is sick, will beg to go outside and eat grass, he searches for a certain type of grass that grows around here called sudangrass, which is rich in nitrilosides, and soon afterwards, he starts feeling better.

Objections are sometimes raised regarding meat-eating animals, presumed to consume no plants at all, but this is simply flawed thinking. Notably, there are instances of "meat-eating" animals that lived their entire lives refusing to eat meat.

A famous example is a lioness named "Little Tyke." In the early days of movie production, Little Tyke was in high demand because she refused to consume any meat, making her a remarkably safe animal for use on film sets.
(See Georges H. Westbeau, Little Tyke: The True Story of a Gentle Vegetarian Lioness, Theosophical Publishing House, 1986, ISBN: 9780835606059)


Little Tyke consumed only vegetables, and a $1,000 reward was offered to anyone who could deceive her into eating meat, but no one succeeded. Various tricks were attempted, including adding a few drops of blood to her milk, but she refused to drink it. I cite Little Tyke's example to show that so-called "carnivorous" animals can and do eat plants, much like our own dog, despite the assumptions of modern evolutionism adherents who cling to uniformitarian ideologies, erroneously insisting that if a "scientist" labels an animal a "carnivore," it must exclusively eat meat.
(Read "Evolutionism: Another New-Age Religion" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

Some readers may recall watching nature shows in which lions are filmed killing their prey and ripping the meat off the bone, but those who have been in the wild and watched these animals will tell a different story. When lions rip apart their kill, they most often do not eat the meat first, but rather, they tear through the flesh to get to the nutrient-rich organs, like the heart and liver, which carry the nitrilosides consumed by the now-dead animal.

Joe Hutto lived among, and traveled with, a pack of mule deer for seven years, and came back to write a book on his findings:
"Unlike the kills of the coyote or the wolf, lion kills appear to be relatively efficient, and death comes swiftly most of the time, but the unfortunate fact is that in most instances, lions will merely open up the abdomen of a freshly killed calf or deer and eat only the heart and/or the liver and then are off to the next easy kill."
-Joe Hutto, Touching the Wild: Living with the Mule Deer of Deadman Gulch, Simon and Schuster, 2014, ISBN: 9781628735536

The following testimonies are from a website that no longer exists because it was persecuted by the AMA and CDC (Centers for Disease Control), and later seized by the FBI in 2019 because the owner, Jason Vale (who we will cover more in chapter seven), was selling apricot seeds to help cure cancer. One testimony concerned a horse that had contracted cancer:
"Susan's horse, Jack, was diagnosed with squamous cell carcinoma in his left nostril a few months ago. She emailed asking if the seeds could help. I told her absolutely and also about the famous Hoxey Cancer therapy discovered when Mr. Hoxey followed his cancer ridden horse into the woods to write down the herbs the horse was eating as the tumors shrunk. She started the seeds and some herbs and now, three months later has e-mailed me the following note:
Just emailing with an update on my horse's success. His vet came out for a 3 month check-up on Friday and his carcinoma has shrunk!!! The outside swelling has visibly shrunk and the inside lesion is no longer ulcerated and only very tiny — and looking very healthy!! Unfortunately, because of the location of the carcinoma (very high up on the inside of his left nostril), it is not really possible for me to check its progress without her special instruments but she will come again in a few months to check. She wasn't familiar with the herbal remedy or the apricot seeds I'm treating him with but was amazed and really happy with the way things are looking. He's currently taking six seeds in the morning and six seeds in the evening."
-Apricots From God, "Testimonies," June 29, 2011, retrieved Nov 27, 2024, [https://web.archive.org/web/20190127050035/http://www.apricotsfromgod.info/testimonials/]

Another man testified about his dog's cancer:
"A gentleman named Al from around my block who has a German Shepard [sic] named Duke told me in the local deli that his dog has cancerour [sic] tumors all over. Big tumors. He said he spent 7000$ for cat [sic] scans and other diagnostic procedures which all concluded 100% definite cancer. I ran him to my mother's house and gave him about a 1/4 bag of her supply (they are back ordered all over the US right now and I need MY seeds ). Told him to give them to his dog even if it throws up. Today, two weeks later as he was walking his dog, he came to my house. He made his Duke turn to where the biggest of the tumors had been. Nothing. A tiny lump compared to half a soft ball two weeks earlier. He told Duke to say good day to Uncle Jason. I'm family now. He said the first day or two that Duke regurgitated them. He fed them to him again and again until Duke accepted them."
-Apricots From God, "Testimonies," June 29, 2011, retrieved Nov 27, 2024, [https://web.archive.org/web/20190127050035/http://www.apricotsfromgod.info/testimonials/]

The results are not always so quick, but I have heard stories ranging from days to months where the tumors disappear. Remember, the tumor is NOT the cancer, the tumor is only the symptom of the cancer, which is why cutting out tumors does not solve the problem, and in these instances the body got rid of the tumors when the appropriate nutrition of B17 was applied.

Though many veterinarians may ignore these results, some have taken it upon themselves to test it on animals with cancerous tumors in their own clinics. Dr. George Browne Jr., head of the Eureka Veterinary Hospital in Eureka, California, published his experiment on a five-year-old male Pekingese dog with thyroid carcinoma:
"The twice weekly regimen was continued for one month, during which time the growth regressed to a size comparable to that palpated during the original examination. Intravenous injections were discontinued and a daily maintenance dosage of 100 mg. [milligrams] of amygdalin [B17/laetrile] per orum [via the mouth] was established. This dosage has been continued for seven months. A biopsy taken six and one-half months after the initiation of amygdalin therapy revealed no evidence of malignancy."
-George Browne Jr., D.V.M., "Remission of Canine Thyroid Carcinoma Following Nitriloside Therapy," Pet Practice Magazine, February, 1974, p. 189; Browne repeated the experiment on multiple animals in similar circumstances with the same result.

I will cover more testimonies in a later chapter, but for now, I hope readers understand that B17 (amygdalin/nitrilosides) has amazing therapeutic effects for cancer, and although some will claim that no scientific experiment has been done to prove these claims, that is not true, as we will see. However, even if we assume that no scientific experiments have been done, we do have empirical evidence (i.e. gathered through observation and experience) which has provided more than enough data to show that cancer is a vitamin B17 deficiency, and that we are starving ourselves to death on a full stomach.

Now we can begin to answer the skeptic's question: "Why hasn't my doctor heard about this?!"



 

A man rolls into a dusty farming town on his horse, pulling a fancy wagon with the sound of bottles and vials rattling. "Come one, come all!" shouts the well-dressed man, "Try Doc Morton's Miracle Elixir, the cure for every ail! Aching joints? Back pain? Troubled mind? Worry no more! Morton's Miracle Elixir will solve all your problems!"


(Created using Grok 2.0 on X, 2024)
The townsfolk pause their busy, day-to-day routine to hear the news of this miracle cure, cautiously curious about Dr. Morton's words. Morton tells the people that his elixir is a secret family recipe, handed down through many generations, and carefully crafted by harvesting the oil from exotic snakes, and can do everything from increasing vitality to restoring lost hair.

"Sounds too good to be true!" shouts Ms. Effie Deeay from the crowd. Morton invites her to come try a sample, and soon after she drinks, she shouts emphatically, "My back pain is gone!"

The people begin to crowd around Morton's cart with their money in hand to buy his miracle elixir, and I am confident that, by now, you know how this story ends. The people figure out it was a scam, and hunt down Morton to get their money back, but both he and the secret assistant he had planted in the crowd have skipped town.

But if that was your expectation, you could not be more wrong because there was no end to the story. In reality, Doc Morton paid the mayor of the town to contractually agree to have all the farmers pay taxes, taking food out of the mouths of their children to force the public to pay for his elixir's use on criminals in the local jail, and to teach students about its effectiveness in the local school.

Effie Deeay was elected the Minister of Health for the town, issuing convincing reports that Morton's Miracle Elixir was a legitimate medicine, and Morton used that information to post ads on bulletin boards and shops all over the town, so anyone who was feeling a bit unwell could fill out an application to get community-funded bottles of the elixir. Morton used that money to develop more elixirs, one for every ailment the people could conceive to complain about, and established tax-funded support programs in more towns until the entire country believed they needed Morton's Miracle Elixir.

If you believe I am exaggerating the facts, think again because this story is extremely mild compared to what has actually happened in reality. To brainwash the entire country (and many other countries) into believing they need snake oil (i.e. pharmaceutical drugs), we need to understand how the Pillsbury dough company concocted a deceptive donation scheme which led to a revolutionary takeover of American medical schools.

Frederick T. Gates was ordained a Baptist minister after graduating from Rochester Theological Seminary, and in the late 19th century, after eight years playing the role of a pastor, he decided to help Charles A. Pillsbury, the founder of the Pillsbury company, raise money for a "Christian" Academy. Gates told Pillsbury to give $50,000 to the Owatonna Baptist Academy on the condition that they do the work to raise an equal amount from the community, something we know today as "matching donations."

This is an extremely deceptive tactic that is considered today to be a standard practice, in which a wealthy benefactor, who could easily give the full amount needed without any help, has the public do most of the legwork. The public views the large matching contribution of the wealthy man as the greatest gift, and he has his name and company logo plastered on everything concerning the charity fund-raiser, meaning that he receives a huge amount of free public advertising at no extra cost, and gets a 50% discount on the donation he would have normally had to give in full.

The following is a summary of the matching donation scheme:

The corporation gets full credit for a donated dollar amount at half the price. The corporation now has an entire community of hard-working, dedicated volunteers to raise half of the money at no cost. The corporation will get an enormous amount of free advertising. As volunteers go door-to-door asking for donations, the company name will have to be mentioned in their pitch as the "matching donor." Such door-to-door advertising would cost a company many times more than what they paid for the low cost of matching donations. The company not only gets free word-of-mouth advertising, but also physical banners at drives that carry the company name, all at the cost of the public, rather than the corporation. The corporation will see a rise in sales because often, if a consumer supports a charitable organization, they will switch their household product brands to the company that donates to the "charitable" corporation, thinking that if they purchase the product of the company behind the "charity," they also become charitable by association.

After Pillsbury gave the matching donation, Baptists at a 1886 state convention praised him, named their school (Owatonna Baptist Academy) after him, and Pillsbury Academy (later named Pillsbury Baptist Bible College) was operational until it closed permanently in 2008:
"[T]he thanks of the convention and of the Baptists of the State whom it represents are hereby gratefully returned to Mr. Pillsbury with the assurance that his great and generous gift has further endeared him to us and has given to us a name that we and those who shall follow us will profoundly cherish... That Minnesota Academy be hereafter known and called Pillsbury Academy."
-United States Bureau of Education, Circular of Information, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1902, p. 218

A wicked man taketh a gift out of the bosom
to pervert the ways of judgment.
-Proverbs 17:23

This verse means that when a man (or in this case, the public at large) takes a gift that is given with conditions or implications, meaning that it is more akin to a bribe than a gift, it is given to corrupt righteous judgment. In other words, righteous judgment (John 7:24) does good for the poor and needy, and rids them out of the hand of the wicked (Psa 82:4), but when the public accepts such gifts from wicked men, the end result will oppress the poor and needy.

Though the volunteers and the broader community may have acted with charitable intent, they were unaware that Pillsbury's branding was manipulating them. Following Gates' advice, the company linked its logo to charity and education through a cost-effective door-to-door advertising campaign, which proved so successful that it drew the keen attention of John D. Rockefeller, who promptly hired Gates to design similar campaigns for his businesses.

Readers should note that, at the turn of the 20th century, John Rockefeller's public image was largely negative due to his unscrupulous business practices. He attempted various tactics to improve his reputation, such as handing out dimes to children in front of the press for newspaper coverage, deceiving some into believing he was a philanthropist.


Rockefeller was so elated by this new "charity" strategy, he praised Gates:
"Fred Gates was a wonderful business man... His work for the American Baptist Education Society required him to travel extensively. Once, as he was going south, I asked him to look into an iron mill in which I had an interest. His report was a model of clarity! Then I asked him to make some investigations of other property in the west. I had been told this particular company was rolling in wealth. Mr. Gates' report showed I had been deceived. Now I realized I had met a commercial genius. I persuaded Mr. Gates to become a man of business. He consented—if I would help him indulge his passion for accomplishing something for the good of mankind. Of course, I assented. That was the beginning of our association. Mr. Gates always enjoyed work. His splendid co-operation gave me more time to plant trees and play golf. Together we worked out schemes of philanthropy. We searched constantly for finalities. We tried to get at the causes of things, to cure evils at the source. That is why we were so intensely interested in the University of Chicago: it gave so much attention to research."
-John D. Rockefeller, quoted by John K. Winkler, John D. Rockefeller: A Portrait in Oils, Cosimo, 2007, p. 176-177, ISBN: 9781602069688

Some readers may take offense that I expose the darker side of matching donations, often because they have participated in charity drives that use this tactic. The truth is that any company matching donations could have easily provided the full amount if they chose, but the matching strategy offers unique public relations benefits they could not achieve otherwise, even by donating the entire sum. Thus, while their intentions may seem benevolent outwardly, inwardly, they exploit this to gain greater power, wealth, and control.

There is a way which seemeth right unto a man,
but the end thereof are the ways of death.
-Proverbs 14:12

And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.
-2 Peter 2:3

In 1890, shortly after Rockefeller hired Fred Gates to serve his interests, the Baptist University of Chicago received a $600,000 donation, contingent on raising $400,000 themselves. The greedy and willingly blind Baptists seized the opportunity without considering the consequences of aligning with a man known for his nefarious public reputation. Within a year of accepting the funds, Rockefeller's true motives surfaced as he appointed William R. Harper as president of the university, and within two years, all anti-Rockefeller faculty were dismissed and replaced with those who aligned with John D. Rockefeller's ideals.

These two examples are not exceptions. This type of takeover has been done by many "Robber Barons" as author Matthew Josephson called them:
"We must turn aside from their purely mercenary operations [i.e. methods merely for financial gain] to picture to ourselves for a moment how these barons of coal, iron, or pork, by a natural and concomitant [related] effort to which many interests led them and many voices called them, extended their sway throughout the social order; how like earlier invading hosts arriving from the hills, the steppes [grasslands] or the sea, they overran all the existing institutions which buttress [prop up] society; how they took possession of the political government (with its police, army, navy), of the School, the Press, the Church; and finally how they laid hands upon the world of fashionable or polite society, which in all times seems to persist as a 'kept class' attached to the ruling power yet holding a subtle sway over this power as well as over the manners and opinions of the people."
-Matthew Josephson, The Robber Barons: The Great American Capitalists, 1861-1901, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 1962, p. 316, ISBN: 9780156767903

When I state that Rockefeller "appointed" his chosen man to lead the Baptist college, I do not mean he directly issued orders, but rather, his immense influence and generous donations left the college staff beholden to complying with his requests. Who would dare oppose the man who provided so much? Should they bite the hand feeding them? Challenging Rockefeller risked not only losing his future funding but also jeopardizing opportunities from other wealthy donors, and so driven by their so-called "Christian" love of money and fear of man, they stayed silent and submissive to their new master.

The fear of man bringeth a snare: but whoso
putteth his trust in the LORD shall be safe.
-Proverbs 29:25

No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon. [i.e. mammon is money]
-Matthew 6:24

But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition. For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows. But thou, O man of God, flee these things; and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness.
-1 Timothy 6:9-11

While naive churchgoers cheered, sang, and proclaimed "God has kept Chicago for us!," their religious institutions were being infiltrated by men who would reshape society to serve the wealthy elite. A shortsighted pastor from Cleveland's Euclid Avenue Baptist Church, in his fervent ignorance, declared, "People charge Mr. Rockefeller with stealing the money he gave to the church, but he has laid it on the altar and thus sanctified it." Blinded by pride and greed, they foolishly believed that oil and steel tycoons had become "Christians," willingly ignorant to the fact that these so-called "Christian" organizations were overtaken by industry giants for mere pocket change, a minuscule sum for men of such power and wealth.
(See Matthew Josephson, The Robber Barons: The Great American Capitalists, 1861-1901, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 1962, p. 322, ISBN: 9780156767903)

Now that Fred Gates had shown greedy churchgoers the way to gain money from wealthy elites, many excited pastors quickly transformed from ministers to marketers, and became maestros in the lucrative business of fundraising:
"The religious institutions, especially the evangelistic churches and foundations centered in the large American cities, now by dint of 'revivals' or 'drives' accumulated extensive reservoirs of money running in some instances to between ten and fifteen millions. Their directors, men of the stamp of the Reverend Dr. Frederick Gates, became great investment bankers in their own right, buying and selling securities, lands, properties."
-Matthew Josephson, The Robber Barons: The Great American Capitalists, 1861-1901, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 1962, p. 323, ISBN: 9780156767903)

This is one of the reasons that, in my Bible teachings, I have exposed and condemned "revivals." The revivalism movement was created by 19th-century false preacher Charles Finney, who incorporated numerous anti-biblical practices that many church buildings still use to this day, and if any readers want to learn more, I recommend reading my article called, "Revivalism: The Devil's Design" (or listening to my audio series on it) at creationliberty.com.

Nowhere in the Bible do we have commandment or precedent to give ourselves fancy titles such as "Reverend Bob," and the word 'reverend' means one who should be feared with affection, but there is only one person in the Bible ever called "reverend" in Scripture, and that is the Lord God because He alone is holy and deserving of reverence among men. (Psa 111:9) Thus, those men who call themselves "reverend" are taking the glory of God upon themselves in blasphemous fashion. (Isa 42:8) If any readers want to learn more about that, I have another article called "Titles Are Unbiblical in the Church," which you can find here at creationliberty.com.

He also that received seed among the thorns is he that heareth the word; and the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the word, and he becometh unfruitful.
-Matthew 13:22

With an army of fundraisers, glorifying themselves for what they considered to be charitable works, a three-step process was repeated in major schools around the country, especially schools of medicine:

A rich man offers a donation to a college, and gets other people to pay a large percentage of the cost. The rich man offers over 50% to put more pressure on the school to abide by his wishes. The rich man receives a positive public image boost, while creating pressure to have his chosen corporate representative on the board of directors, forcing the school to allow corporate advisors to sit in on meetings for added influence in corporate ideology. Restructure the school to center courses around promotion and use of that corporation's products that will benefit the profits of the company.

Some readers may not take this as seriously as they ought to, and label me a "conspiracy theorist," which is a legacy, mainstream media term developed by the CIA in the 20th century to obfuscate the truth, and keep the public from learning the facts. However, do not take my word for it, listen to John's son, David Rockefeller, from his memoirs:
"For more than a century, ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure — one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."
-David Rockefeller, Memoirs, Random House Publishing Group, 2011, p. 405, ISBN: 9780307789389

These so-called "philanthropic" methods soon expanded into large charity organizations, and many of them could be mentioned here, such as the American Heart Association, the American Red Cross, and Habitat for Humanity, just to name a few, but for this book, we will look closer at the cancer charities. In 1926, John Rockefeller made a major donation (of $125,000, which would be the equivalent of about $2.25 million in 2024) to an up-and-coming charity known as the American Cancer Society (ACS), which is today one of the largest "matching donation" charities in the world, and they used to own the domain "matchinggifts.com," which (at the time I wrote this paragraph, in late 2024) has been locked down, and all their domain information has been redacted.
(See Matching Gifts, "Who We Serve," retrieved Nov 28, 2024, [https://web.archive.org/web/20201026182726/http://hepdata.com/who-we-serve]; The site had the title "HEP Data," which is now closely associated with chemical companies; See also "American Cancer Society Company History Timeline," Zippia, retrieved Dec 5, 2024, [https://www.zippia.com/american-cancer-society-careers-14546/history/])

As of 2024, the ACS has a "Matching Gifts" section on their website in which they not only take financial contributions, but also accept donated work hours of employees from other companies. To be clear, they want you to work at your job for free, have your boss send your hourly wages to them, so they can "match it" with a donation, and the ACS will benevolently take all the credit for it.
(See American Cancer Society, "Matching Gifts," retrieved Nov 28, 2024, [https://www.cancer.org/donate/matching-gifts.html])

I understand there are hard-working people who honestly believe they are doing the right thing by donating to the ACS. Frequently, I see content creators online host charity drives to send money to the ACS (and other corrupt cancer "charities") to supposedly "fight cancer," but they are being deceived, and I want them to understand that, no matter how much money they give to the ACS, that money will NEVER be used to "fight cancer," and to understand that, we need to look closer at the history of the ACS.

The American Cancer Society corporation was established in 1913 at the Harvard Club in New York, with its original board of directors including men like Alfred P. Sloan of General Motors, Monroe Rathbone of Standard Oil, and Charles D. Hilles of AT&T, among others. This raises serious concerns, as the ACS was founded by wealthy elites from major corporate cartels known for deceptive practices driven by greed and power. Notably, this information is absent from the ACS website; the 2016 version vaguely stated, "Established in 1913 by a small group of physicians and businessmen," while the 2024 version merely notes, "1913 The American Cancer Society was founded."
-American Cancer Society, "About Us," retrieved Dec 3, 2024, [https://web.archive.org/web/20160730093410/cancer.org/aboutus/whoweare/governance/index]; See also American Cancer Society, "110 Years of Wins Against Cancer," retrieved Dec 3, 2024, [https://www.cancer.org/about-us/who-we-are/110-anniversary.html]

Many people think the American Cancer Society is a non-profit organization because they are 501(c)(3) incorporated, which is true on paper, but the ACS has been indirectly involved in for-profit activity, especially in patent rights:
"The American Medical Association has strong ties to pharmaceutical companies, and the American Cancer Society owns half of the patent rights of chemotherapy drugs."
-Zillah R. Eisenstein, Manmade Breast Cancers, Cornell University Press, 2001, p. 101, ISBN: 9780801487071; Eisenstein is a professor and Chair of Politics at Ithaca College in New York.

The above author is a professor at Ithaca College in New York, and I am not saying that she is wrong, but the ACS seems to own only part interest in certain patents, with the majority of the rights belonging to other institutions, to keep their interests discreet. After all, if the ACS owned a majority right to a patent, that would violate their 501(c)(3) contract, and under the table, away from the prying eyes of the public, the ACS makes money from patents that they develop through research grants funded by donations.

For example, there is a drug used in chemotherapy treatment called "5 fluorouracil" (5-FU), and the patent on it is partially owned by the ACS:
"Another popular breast cancer drug, and part of the chemo cocktail I was prescribed, is 5-fluorouracil or 5-FU. Hoffman-LaRoche held the patent for seventeen years with the American Cancer Society (who owned twenty-five percent) says Moss. 'Perhaps by coincidence,' he adds, 'one of the founders of the American Cancer Society, Elmer Bobst, is a former president of Hoffman-LaRoche. Bobst was one of the high-profile businessmen Mary Lasker brought onto the ACS board when she took charge of the Association in the 1940s."
-Sharon Batt, Patient No More: The Politics of Breast Cancer, Spinifex Press, 2003, p. 253-254, ISBN: 9781875559398

In case you did not understand the conflict of interest, essentially, a corporation will own a patent for chemotherapy drug, let's call it "X Pill," and the man who used to be in charge of the company that makes X Pill becomes a member of the board of directors for a "non-profit" entity that promotes the use of X Pill. This is like a beauty pageant contestant having her mother on the judging panel. If anyone thinks that dirty money is not flowing through the hands of these people under the table, and that they all have the best of intentions with no nefarious activity going on behind closed doors, then enjoy your delusions of grandeur.

If that was not bad enough, studies have shown that 5-FU is not good for use because it does not work for its intended purpose, and yet, it still continues to be used because it is recommended by the ACS:
"An officially approved 'standard of care' drug for treatment of cancer of the colon is based on the use of a highly toxic chemical, 5-F-U, despite reports in prestigious medical journals that it doesn't work. It continues to be widely used, perhaps because the American Cancer Society owns 50% of 5-F-U."
-Eustace Mullins, Murder by Injection: The Story of the Medical Conspiracy Against America, Aware Journalism, p. 164, ISBN: 9780880606943

I am unsure why one source says 25%, while another source says 50%, but I would not claim that either source was wrong because both could be correct, as rights to a patent could be shared privately with the ACS by multiple sources. The point I want readers to understand is that the ACS is involved in shady for-profit tactics, and even if they do not directly own rights to the patents, they are profiting from them through other methods, while getting tax exempt benefits from the public through 501(c)(3).
(If readers want to understand why no church should ever have a 501c3 contract, read 501c3: The Devil's Church here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

The core issue is that the ACS profits from drug companies, a fact seldom reported because most early 21st-century journalists either lack interest or the courage to investigate. Worse still, many media outlets are now owned by the pharmaceutical industry, so journalists risk their jobs if they scrutinize their corporate masters, and as a result, the public views the ACS as a noble, benevolent organization, shielded from criticism; however, as author G. Edward Griffin aptly stated in his book:
"Many donors to the ACS would be outraged to learn that the organization has a vested interest in the sale of drugs and a financial tie-in with the drug industry."
-G. Edward Griffin, World Without Cancer, American Media, 2006, p. 258, ISBN 0912986190

Readers should note that patents are designed to protect inventors, so they can profit from their creations, but certain things, like natural substances, cannot be patented. For instance, nutrients from food, such as vitamin B17, cannot be used by corporations for exclusive profit. As I noted earlier, when seeking a cancer cure, corporate cartels focus on patentable, lab-created products and will not invest effort in exploring natural remedies because they cannot guarantee profit rights.

Therefore, when the public donates money to the ACS, they are paying for grants to laboratories that will only invest in R&D (i.e. research and development) of a synthetic product that is patentable. Furthermore, when billions of dollars over the years have been invested into cancer pharmaceuticals, a natural remedy for cancer would completely destroy all of Big Pharma's profits, eliminating the trillion-dollar cancer industry, which means that pharmaceutical industries not only have to protect their patents, but they must also destroy the threat of any rising movement to naturally cure cancer.

In previous chapters, we learned about the research of Ernst Krebs, and how the American Medical Association buried his research, despite the fact that other independent scientists found his discoveries credible. We also learned that Krebs developed a pill form of B17 called laetrile, but you may be wondering: What ever happened to laetrile? Was it ever made available to the public? Why have I never heard of it before?

When wealthy elites seize control of medical schools, placing their chosen men on boards to shape curricula, those board members ensure Big Pharma's philosophy dominates the classrooms, and within a few decades, the practice of medicine is transformed into a drug emporium. Consequently, graduates schooled in pharmacology from these corrupted institutions rose to leadership in the American Medical Association, which has since maintained unwavering loyalty to the industrial medical complex.



 


"A pack [of cigarettes] a day keeps lung cancer away."
Those are the infamous words of Dr. Ian MacDonald during a Congressional hearing in 1957 as an "expert" in mouth and lung cancer. MacDonald was subpoenaed for questioning because, in the 1950s, there was a growing controversy about the misleading advertising tactics related to smoking cigarettes, while Big Tobacco paid "experts" (such as MacDonald) under the table to make false claims about the health risks.

In this hearing, MacDonald blamed sunlight as one of the leading contributors to skin cancer, which is as stupid as saying that being female is a leading contributor to breast cancer. For example, the Hunzakuts we learned about in chapter three get much more sunlight than the average American, but never contract cancer. MacDonald was a clinical professor of surgery at the University of Southern California School of Medicine at the time, and when asked about the connection between smoking cigarettes and lung cancer, he said:
"Now, the cause of lung cancer must be much more complicated than the oversimplified thesis of cigarette smoking. The data advanced by those who are mesmerized by statistics include the English findings offered by Doll and Hill. Their controls—that is patients without lung cancer, actually contained more subjects in the moderate smoking group than there were lung cancer patients in that moderate smoking group. Their figures would just indicate that moderate smoking is actually commoner—speaking of the English sample now—in persons without lung cancer. Even these data may indicate smoking to be a harmless pastime up to 24 cigarettes per day. One could modify an old slogan: A pack a day keeps lung cancer away."
-United States Congress, Committee on Government Operations, "False and Misleading Advertising: Filter-tip Cigarettes," 85th Congress, Session #1, 1957, p. 233

I agree with MacDonald in part, not that one should ever smoke cigarettes because they do INDEED provoke cancer of the mouth, lungs, and other breathing and eating apparatuses, but rather, I agree that cancer is a bit deeper than just smoking cigarettes. Because cancer is a vitamin deficiency, one could smoke and not develop cancer if one were eating the right nutritional balance, but would still develop many other deadly respiratory issues from the tar alone.

The overwhelming scientific evidence today confirms that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer, yet this did not deter MacDonald from attempting to persuade Americans that smoking was beneficial to their health and encouraging them to smoke more. Corrupt physicians like MacDonald were willing to let people suffer and die as long as they received financial kickbacks from Big Tobacco, which very likely played a significant role in securing his position within the California Medical Association.

In 1953, laetrile was condemned as "quackery" based on an UNSIGNED report from the California Medical Association (CMA), created by CMA Committee Chairman, Ian MacDonald (right), and the CMA Committee Secretary, Henry Garland (left). (Photo LEFT from Dwight L. Wilbur, "L. Henry Garland 1903-1966," American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol. 100, Issue #2, retrieved Dec 5, 2024, [https://www.ajronline.org/doi/abs/10.2214/ajr.100.2.482]; Photo RIGHT from L.A. County Medical Bulletin and San Francisco Medical Society; World Without Cancer, Second Edition, 1997, ISBN: 0912986190)

Readers should note that both of these prestigious doctors and leaders of the California Medical Association did NOT personally do ANY experiments on laetrile, nor did they have any experience with it. They only reviewed a document of experiments. (See National Library of Medicine, "TREATMENT of cancer with laetriles; a report by the Cancer Commission of the California Medical Association", Calif Med, April, 1953; 78(4):320-6, retrieved Dec 5, 2024, [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/13042670/])

Today, if you ask a physician about laetrile, he will likely say he has heard negative claims about it, or he may promise to research it, meaning he will check the AMA website for information. The site will reference the 1953 CMA MacDonald and Garland report, vaguely stating that laetrile is ineffective or even harmful, which he will accept as the truth without further inquiry, urging you to avoid such quackery.

Most physicians today fear researching anything that contradicts the "church" of the American Medical Association. If they recommend something the AMA condemns, they risk losing their medical license, facing a media firestorm, being publicly branded as a malicious quack doctor deceiving patients, and losing the money and respect they have worked so hard to achieve.

In the 1970s, two decades after the MacDonald and Garland report, a reporter from The National Tattler documented a patient exchange in a New York hospital after an inquiry about laetrile:
"Dr. Edwin Mirand of Roswell Memorial Hospital in Buffalo, N.Y. said: 'We've looked into it and found it has no value.' When asked if the renowned little hospital, which deals only with cancer, actually tested Laetrile, Dr. Mirand said, "No, we didn't feel it was necessary after others of good reputation had tested it and found had no effectiveness in the treatment of cancer.' He referred, as all authorities do, to the [1953] California Report."
-Tom Valentine, "Government is Suppressing Cancer Control," The National Tattler, March 11, 1973, p. 2

To clarify, this physician stated he saw no need to investigate a treatment that could save his patients' lives because he respected a man who claimed Americans should smoke a pack of cigarettes daily to prevent lung cancer. He did not claim to have knowledge of the subject matter, but said he did not "feel" further research was necessary. This is why I have long advised against blindly trusting physicians, as many have demonstrated ignorance, sometimes developing tunnel vision regarding illness, and the best among them acknowledge this, which is why honest physicians occasionally advise patients to "seek a second OPINION."
(Read "Respecting Persons is Sin" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

opinion (n): a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty
(See 'opinion', Random House Dictionary, 2024, [dictionary.com]; See also Collins English Dictionary, 10th Edition, William Collins Sons & Co, 2012)

It does not matter what medical condition you have, it does not matter which physician you see, always do your own research.

In another example from the Cancer News Journal:
"The cancer expert in question... told me that Laetrile was 'sugar pills.' Had he told me that he had used Laetrile experimentally on X number of patients and found it completely ineffective, I might have been impressed. But when I asked him whether he had ever used it himself, he said that he had not. When I asked him whether he had ever traveled abroad to study the experience with Laetrile therapy in Germany, Italy, Mexico, the Philippines, or other countries, he replied that he had not. And when I asked him if he had ever made a first-hand study of the pros and cons of the subject, again he conceded that he had not. He was simply repeating what he had heard from others who, in turn, were probably repeating what they had heard from others, going all the way back to the antiquated 1953 report of the California Cancer Commission."
-David Martin, Cancer News Journal, January/April, 1971, p. 22

Again, we can see the physician was reiterating the narrative of the 1953 CMA report, but to be fair, in that day, despite the absurdity of MacDonald's claims in the Congressional hearing, perhaps it was possible MacDonald and Garland's findings were accurate. Why would I give them that leeway? Because the original documents of experiments was NOT published to the public; only MacDonald and Garland had access to them, leaving no one at the time able to verify whether they were mistaken or deceptive.

In 1963, over a decade after the MacDonald and Garland report was published, the California State Department of Health finally released all the original experiments to the public for the first time. After reviewing the experiments, they were found to contain positive feedback on the therapeutic effects of laetrile, and showed that MacDonald and Garland had (unsurprisingly) LIED about the results, but despite this, their 1953 report was labeled by the California State Department of Health as "true," and is still used by the AMA today as a justification to condemn laetrile as quackery.
(See "Supplementary Report by Cancer Advisory Council on Treatment of Cancer with Beta-Cyanogenic Glucosides ['Laetriles']," UC Berkeley, California Department of Public Health, 1965; retrieved Jan 21, 2025, [https://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/9582711])

The first case looked at a Mrs. A.B., age 51, treated for one month on laetrile, and found that "palpable abdominal masses were smaller and that the patient was 'improved'," but that further data was not collected to provide sufficient evidence of an objective therapeutic effect. The second case looked at Mr. H.G., age 58, treated for roughly five weeks, and found that "There was improvement in the blood picture postoperatively," but once again, there was a lack of follow up to gather enough evidence to claim an objective therapeutic effect.
(See "Supplementary Report by Cancer Advisory Council on Treatment of Cancer with Beta-Cyanogenic Glucosides ['Laetriles']," California Department of Public Health, 1965, p. 2-4, retrieved Dec 10, 2024, [https://centerforinquiry.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/33/quackwatch/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/advisory_report_1965.pdf])

Please do not misunderstand because this does not mean that there was no therapeutic effect. A therapeutic effect is a result of a medical treatment that is deemed beneficial to the health of the patient. There were therapeutic effects in these case studies because the vast majority of patients reported that they were feeling better, but because the lack of follow-up left them unable to conclusively attribute that therapeutic effect to laetrile, the scientists concluded that the available data was "inadequate," but nowhere in the study did they conclude what MacDonald and Garland concluded in their report.

MacDonald and Garland, in their UNSIGNED report, said:
"The unanimous opinion of these consultants was that in no instance could any recognizable effect of a chemotherapeutic agent be observed in the histology of these various neoplasms. [i.e. tumors] Some of the proponents of Laetrile had reported microscopic observations in the form of necrosis [cell death] and hemorrhage in some instances, and sclerosis in others, which they interpreted as being the result of a specific action of Laetrile on the neoplasm. Although both of these changes were observed by the consultants in a number of the cases studied, such changes in each instance were entirely consistent with vascular changes, necrosis and stromal sclerosis regularly seen in such neoplasms, both treated and untreated. Even in those cases showing considerable necrosis, particularly in hepatic metastases [liver tumors], there were invariably large areas of well preserved and viable tumor tissue. No evidence of cytotoxic changes was observed by any of the consultants."
-Ian MacDonald & Henry Garland, "The Treatment of Cancer with 'Laetriles', A Report by the Cancer Commission of the California Medical Association," 78: 320-326, April, 1953, retrieved Dec 6, 2024, [https://cdn.centerforinquiry.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/33/2020/09/22170729/california_cancer_commission_report_on_laetrile.pdf]

This was very tricky language, and we must read slowly to understand the linguistic sleight-of-hand because MacDonald and Garland removed the word 'objective' from their report. For example, in the case of Ms. M.E., age 71, two months of observations were made, and she reported that after taking laetrile, she "sleeps well and has a good appetite," but they added that "no objective evidence of benefit is included," and the key word here is 'objective' because, although there were practical therapeutic effects while taking laetrile, it would be dishonest of them to conclusively say that laetrile was proven therapeutic from that study alone without more testing, or in other words, the patients reported improvement in their day-to-day health as a result of taking laetrile, but the scientists did not "include" those benefits because they could not directly tie them to laetrile without more testing.

It was even more deceptive that MacDonald and Garland concluded that, "No evidence of cytotoxic changes was observed by any of the consultants," because cytotoxic changes were not being examined in these case studies. They were not testing for laetrile's ability to eliminate harmful cells in tumors, they were simply examining the basic overall health of the patient when taking it, and in some cases, they DID observe a reduction in the tumorous area, only they were unable to conclude if it was due to laetrile without further experimentation.

The following is a summary of the cases in the study, and please note that a "blood picture" is a test collecting information about the red and white blood cells, as well as the platelet count:

Case #1: Tumor shrinkage, improved overall health. Case #2: Improved blood picture. Case #3: Improved sleep and appetite. Case #4: Improved overall health, improved sleep and appetite, strength increase. Case #5: Positive weight gain, pain relief, patient left hospital because she felt better. Case #6: Tumor shrinkage, liver improved, pain relief. Case #7: Improved blood picture. Case #8: No change reported. Case #9: Positive weight gain, improved sleep and appetite, improved demeanor. Case #10: Pain relief. Case #11: Positive weight gain, pain relief, improved sleep and appetite. Case #12: Improved blood picture. Case #13: Improved blood picture, improved appetite, positive weight gain, improved energy. Case #14: Positive weight gain.

(See "Supplementary Report by Cancer Advisory Council on Treatment of Cancer with Beta-Cyanogenic Glucosides ['Laetriles']," UC Berkeley, California Department of Public Health, 1965; retrieved Jan 21, 2025, [https://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/9582711])

As we can see, these are vastly different results than what was reported by the CMA, and what is stated by the AMA. I agree that this does not constitute objective proof of laetrile's effectiveness, but it does warrant further testing, and it ought to pique the interest of physicians who care about their patients.

Now let's look at more details in the experiments that MacDonald and Garland did not want the American public to see in 1953, waiting 10 years for the propaganda to be established so no one would care about the actual data. The California Department of Public Health report of 1963 listed autopsy experiments conducted by physician J.L. Zundell, and his report from Sept 10, 1952 notes:
"M-1. These slides show adenocarcinoma [i.e. tumor] with areas of focal necrosis. The necrosis is not limited to the central areas of islands of tumor cells, and this might represent a chemical effect since the cells affected show coagulation necrosis and pyknosis."
-J. L. Zundell, "Autopsy Findings in Patients Treated by Laetrile," California Department of Public Health, Report by Cancer Advisory Council on Treatment of Cancer with Beta-Cyanogenetic Glucosides ('Laetriles'), 1963, Appendix 3, p.1 retrieved Dec 6, 2024, [https://quackwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/33/quackwatch/cancertreatment/q/laetrile/california_cancer_advisory_council_1963.pdf]

Again, MacDonald and Garland clearly stated, "No evidence of cytotoxic changes was observed by any of the consultants." Yet, Zundell reported that his experiment indicated potential cytotoxic changes, with cancerous cells being destroyed at tumor sites and signs of repair following, proving unequivocally that MacDonald and Garland LIED to the American public, unless one accepts the conspiracy theory spewed by the typical politician, that they were merely "incompetent."

Zundell did not find any significant changes in M-2, but in M-3, he reported:
"This shows an adenocarcinoma of stomach and lymph node. There are small areas of focal necrosis in the slide of the stomach, and this again is not necessarily centrally located. There appears to be more degeneration in the tumor cells in the lymph node. I would consider this as a possible result of chemical agent."
-J. L. Zundell, "Autopsy Findings in Patients Treated by Laetrile," California Department of Public Health, Report by Cancer Advisory Council on Treatment of Cancer with Beta-Cyanogenetic Glucosides ('Laetriles'), 1963, Appendix 3, p.1 retrieved Dec 6, 2024, [https://quackwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/33/quackwatch/cancertreatment/q/laetrile/california_cancer_advisory_council_1963.pdf]

Ultimately, Zundell reported that 2 out of the 6 autopsies he performed showed "chemotherapeutic toxic cellular changes," even though MacDonald and Garland said that "No evidence of cytotoxic changes was observed by any of the consultants." Later that same year, on Dec 15, 1952, John Budd reported his findings when he was asked to give his assessment on blind samples:
"2 slides - Both show adenocarcinoma metastatic to liver. Hemorrhagic necrosis of tumor is extensive and small foci of calcification in necrotic tumor are observed. Spontaneous changes could produce all the evidence of degeneration seen here but an interpretation of chemotherapeutic effect might be entertained."
-John W. Budd, "Autopsy Findings in Patients Treated by Laetrile," California Department of Public Health, Report by Cancer Advisory Council on Treatment of Cancer with Beta-Cyanogenetic Glucosides ('Laetriles'), 1963, Appendix 3, p.1-2, retrieved Dec 6, 2024, [https://quackwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/33/quackwatch/cancertreatment/q/laetrile/california_cancer_advisory_council_1963.pdf]

Some readers may be concerned that the positive effects are less significant than anticipated, but this is largely because only minimal amounts of laetrile were used due to fear. In one study I reviewed, they administered just 1 gram per day for five weeks, a mere fraction of the doses given for "FDA-approved" drugs. In essence, they achieved meager results by using meager quantities, comparable to offering a few drops of water to a man stranded in the desert and wondering why it failed to quench his thirst.

If that were not bad enough, it gets worse because the therapeutic effects we read earlier, such as a decrease in pain and an increase in appetite, are relief from symptoms labeled "cachexia" by medical professionals. The following quote is from the New York Academy of Sciences:
"Cachexia, of course, is of major clinical significance in patients with cancer. Warren reported that cachexia was the most frequent single cause of death in cancer, especially of the stomach, breast, and colon-rectum groups."
-Athanasios Theologides, "The Anorexia-Cachexia Syndrome: A New Hypothesis," Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Vol. 230, Mar 18, 1974, p. 17

If a patient will not eat, and does not have enough energy to get out of bed, the patient will likely die. Therefore, physicians are always on the lookout for things that can counteract cachexia because it is, as the New York Academy of Sciences aptly stated in the 1970s, "the most frequent single cause of death in cancer," and that still applies today, as reported in 2024 by Cleveland Clinic, an organization with many locations throughout eastern Ohio:
"Cachexia (wasting syndrome) is a condition that causes significant weight loss and muscle loss. It often affects people with severe chronic diseases like advanced cancer and heart disease. A cachexia diagnosis often means that the end of life is near. Healthcare providers treat cachexia by managing the underlying condition and by improving nutrition."
-Cleveland Clinic, "Cachexia (Wasting Syndrome)," retrieved Dec 10, 2024, [https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/cachexia-wasting-syndrome]

In the 1963 California Department of Health report, they admitted that administration of laetrile resulted in patients reporting relief from symptoms of cachexia, as we read earlier, but then concluded that such things should NOT be defined as "therapeutic:"
"Subjective improvement was interpreted as being evidence of the agent's affecting the neoplasm, rather than being due to the general effect on the host, whether by metabolic or psychologic reasons. Thus, all of the physicians whose patients were reviewed spoke of increase in the sense of well being and appetite, gain in weight and decrease in pain, as though these observations constituted evidence of definitive therapeutic effect."
-John W. Budd, "Autopsy Findings in Patients Treated by Laetrile," California Department of Public Health, Report by Cancer Advisory Council on Treatment of Cancer with Beta-Cyanogenetic Glucosides ('Laetriles'), 1963, Appendix 3, p.10, retrieved Dec 6, 2024, [https://quackwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/33/quackwatch/cancertreatment/q/laetrile/california_cancer_advisory_council_1963.pdf]

According to Merriam-Webster's online medical dictionary, a therapeutic effect has been frequently defined as follows:

therapeutic (adj): of, relating to, or used in the treatment of disease or disorders by remedial agents or methods; having a beneficial effect on the body or mind
(See 'therapeutic', Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary, 2024, [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/therapeutic#medicalDictionary])

Thus, improved appetite, healthy weight gain, increased energy, and better sleep are all therapeutic benefits for cachexia. Yet, the California report claimed these were not therapeutic, offering no reasoning beyond their unwillingness to accept it, proving beyond any doubt that the report's authors were deceitful.

Despite all these lies, which can be uncovered by an amateur researcher simply reading the documents, the National Cancer Institute (cancer.gov) said:
"No controlled clinical trials of laetrile have been reported. Anecdotal reports and case reports have not shown laetrile to be an effective treatment for cancer."
-National Cancer Institute, "Laetrile/Amygdalin (PDQ) Patient Version," retrieved Dec 10, 2024, [https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/treatment/cam/patient/laetrile-pdq]

And to no one's surprise, one of their references is the California Medical Association report from 1953. The National Library of Medicine goes one step further and tells physicians that laetrile is dangerous:
"Laetrile and amygdalin are promoted under various names for the treatment of cancer although there is no evidence for its efficacy. Due to possible cyanide poisoning, laetrile can be dangerous."
-National Library of Medicine, "Laetrile treatment for cancer," retrieved Dec 10, 2024, [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6513327/]

When looking at their references, would you like to take a wild guess which report is one of the first on their list? Of course, the California Medical Association report from 1953.

Corrupted institutions often claim they have conducted numerous experiments with laetrile, all showing no efficacy. However, these experiments use mice instead of men (i.e. mouse metabolism differs significantly from ours), employ transplanted tumors in mice (i.e. neither xenograft nor syngeneic models are in situ, meaning reactions differ from naturally occurring tumors in men), focus solely on tumor size (as medical scientists today mistakenly believe the tumor itself is cancer), and ultimately, if they carelessly report failure, they still receive their paychecks.

Furthermore, these corrupted institutions demand control groups and double blind studies, but this is insanity that could only be performed by depraved people with unsound minds. When a group of cancer patients are dying, how could one simply allow half of the group (who have family and friends holding on to hope) to suffer and die for the sake of appeasing a few willingly blind medical officials?

The American Medical Association, the American Cancer Society, and the National Institute of Health cannot find the evidence of laetrile's effectiveness for the same reason a murderer cannot find a sheriff. It is extremely difficult for a man to find the thing from which he is fleeing.



 

In this chapter, I will be taking a number of quotes from the book Laetrile Case Histories by Dr. John A. Richardson, a well-written book I would recommend for anyone who wants to look into the results of laetrile that are ignored and avoided by modern medicine. Although so-called medical professionals claim that all evidence for laetrile is anecdotal, firstly, anecdotal does not automatically mean false, and secondly, there is empirical and scientific data to reinforce the success stories, as we have already seen.

Before continuing, readers need to understand that laetrile/B17 is NOT a miracle cure, and those with cancer cannot simply consume a few seeds to magically heal their ailments. By the time cancer develops and tumors appear, numerous habitual issues MUST be addressed, including processed food consumption, nutritional and mineral deficiencies, lack of exercise, and other poor lifestyle choices; all are essential to fostering a healthy metabolic system, necessary not only for curing cancer but for sustaining life.

Another crucial point for readers to understand is that medical skeptics often claim laetrile is harmful because patients frequently die months or years after starting it, which is misleading. The problem is that most individuals turn to laetrile/amygdalin/B17 as a last resort, not an initial treatment, meaning many have already caused irreparable harm to their bodies through toxic radiation quackery recommended by "professionals." While laetrile can help restore a semblance of normal life, people foolishly choose to permanently damage their bodies through chemotherapy, and are often too far gone to be saved from imminent organ failure.


Richardson operated his laetrile clinic in the 1970s, and author Patricia Griffin helped him compile the data as a co-author of his book. She rightly pointed out:
"It is possible that not all the patients... will be alive five or ten years from now. Some will pass away of heart attack, some in accidents, some from the delayed effects of radiation or toxic chemotherapy, and some, of course, from the damage already caused by their cancer before starting the Laetrile therapy. But bear in mind that the majority of these cases were classified as 'terminal' before they ever came to the Richardson Clinic. That some of them will not make it is to be expected. That any of them should be alive a year or two later is a major victory for Laetrile. That virtually all of them should experience a loss of pain, a return of strength, and a dramatic improvement in the quality of life—for as long as that life may be theirs—is an enviable achievement that consensus medicine so far has failed to match."
-Patricia Griffin, Laetrile Case Histories: The Richardson Cancer Clinic Experience, Bantam Books, 1977, p. 110, ISBN: 0553114913

Mainstream medical institutions could only dream of matching laetrile's therapeutic benefits, yet they condemn it relentlessly. Chemotherapy, falsely called "therapy," has led to countless patient deaths despite tumor reduction, and laetrile's simple, safe, and affordable nature insults the pride and assumed "expertise" of these so-called medical professionals. They choose to promote poisoning patients and burdening them with crippling debt to maintain their prestigious titles. Thus, they find it easier to vilify laetrile than to admit their errors, driven by fear of malpractice lawsuits, which keeps these cowards loyal to Big Pharma's "team chemo."

"John Peterson had been given less than a year to live as a result of inoperable cancer of the prostate. His disease progressed rapidly, causing intense and constant pain. His body jerked in spasms, he began bleeding from the rectum, and often passed out from pain and weakness. It was at this point that he turned to Laetrile. Within 30 days of his first injection he was able to drive his own car and lead a near-normal life. He is shown here two years later, enjoying one of his favorite activities."
-Patricia Griffin, Laetrile Case Histories: The Richardson Cancer Clinic Experience, Bantam Books, 1977, p. 114-115, ISBN: 0553114913

Although some immediate therapeutic results can be experienced by patients who take laetrile, the results can vary depending on the condition of the patient. Sometimes, a complete reversal of ailments can take years if the symptoms have grown severe.

"Shane Horton was six years old when he developed osteosarcoma of the right upper arm and of the spine. This was confirmed both by X-ray and bone-marrow biopsy. His doctors advised that there was no hope. It was at this point that his parents elected Laetrile therapy. Three years after beginning Laetrile therapy, all evidence of bone cancer had vanished, and Shane was enjoying the life of a completely normal nine-year-old."
-Patricia Griffin, Laetrile Case Histories: The Richardson Cancer Clinic Experience, Bantam Books, 1977, p. 114-115, ISBN: 0553114913

"Mrs. Lorette Lau was told by her doctor in 1975 that, unless she submitted to radiation or chemotherapy as treatment for her cancer of the ovary, she could not live longer than a year. She declined his advice and came to the Richardson Clinic for metabolic therapy instead. She has responded beautifully and continues to enjoy good health."
-Patricia Griffin, Laetrile Case Histories: The Richardson Cancer Clinic Experience, Bantam Books, 1977, p. 114-115, ISBN: 0553114913

It is probable that some individuals mentioned in this chapter have since passed away due to old age. Nevertheless, these actual patients with genuine cancer sought laetrile treatment at Richardson's clinic and experienced significant improvements in their overall health, providing more than anecdotal evidence; it is empirical proof derived from practical application.

"Mrs. Lorraine Ford suffered from inoperable cancer of the liver, with previous cancer of the breast. Statistically, most patients in this category are dead within six months of diagnosis. After the failure of chemotherapy, she turned to Laetrile as a last resort in December of 1974. Today she leads an active and normal life."
-Patricia Griffin, Laetrile Case Histories: The Richardson Cancer Clinic Experience, Bantam Books, 1977, p. 114-115, ISBN: 0553114913

"Ben Reynolds is enjoying good health with his wife four and one-half years after he was diagnosed as having chronic lymphatic leukemia. Except for three days on chemotherapy, he has had no treatment other than metabolic therapy including Laetrile."
-Patricia Griffin, Laetrile Case Histories: The Richardson Cancer Clinic Experience, Bantam Books, 1977, p. 114-115, ISBN: 0553114913

"Mrs. Linda Barton developed cancer of the cervix, confirmed by biopsy, in 1975. Rejecting surgery, she chose, instead, metabolic therapy, including Laetrile. Subsequent tests have shown no trace of cancer."
-Patricia Griffin, Laetrile Case Histories: The Richardson Cancer Clinic Experience, Bantam Books, 1977, p. 114-115, ISBN: 0553114913

Richardson has documented many more cases. The following are but a few of those listed in his book, and none of the patients listed reported any new tumors after laetrile treatment and dietary changes:

July 1974, Female, Age: 55 Tumor in Left Breast She had surgery to remove most of the tumor in her breast. Surgeon suspected tumor would return and recommend breast amputation. She refused amputation surgery, and came to the Richardson clinic. After laetrile treatment (6-9 grams/day) and change of diet to increase metabolism, tumor never reappeared and she returned to normal health. February 1975, Female, Age: 53 Tumor in Left Breast and Lymph Nodes Surgeon performed amputation of left breast, and afterwards found more small tumorous areas. Surgeon believed radiation treatment would not help, told her there was no hope, and told her she would have to face the fact that she would die soon. She came to Richardson Clinic, got a change of diet recommendation to increase metabolism, as well as 1 gram of laetrile per day and I.V. injections of laetrile every month. Two years later, she was living a normal life full of energy, doing house and yard work, and caring for her family. May 1974, Female, Age: N/A Tumor in Left Breast Surgeon performed amputation of left breast, and patient was given radiation treatment. The following year, the tumors returned to the same areas. The last resort was to put her on Stilbesterol, which caused her abdomen to swell and she lost bladder control. She came to the Richardson clinic, got a change of diet recommendation to increase metabolism, and started taking laetrile. Soon after, the tumors stopped spreading, and she went back to living a normal life. June 1967, Female, Age: 50 Tumor in Both Breasts Surgeon performed amputation of one breast, and patient informed they "got it all." Later, lumps started appearing on surgical scars, she had to have her second breast amputated, and then was told she would have to have her uterus and ovaries removed. By 1976, patient chose Laetrile therapy at Richardson Clinic, noticed significant improvement in her energy and health within a few days, went on to have a healthy normal life in the years after, but still lamented the mutilation of her body by mainstream physicians. October 1974, Female, Age: N/A Tumor in Right Breast Surgeon performed amputation of right breast, and she received radiation treatment from November to February of that year. Patient was then put on chemotherapy, and refused to take more after two shots. Patient spoke with surgeon about laetrile, and got angry with her suggestion to try it. March 1975, patient started laetrile therapy with change of diet to increase metabolism, and quickly felt better. One year later, patient lives normally, sleeps normally, does all her work normally, and enjoys her time with family and friends again. August 1974, Female, Age: 34 Tumor in Left Breast Noticed strange symptoms on left side of her body, and the following year, surgeon performed amputation of left breast, but postoperative reports showed that tumors were not completely removed. Tumors had spread to shoulder, and amputation of ovaries was also suggested. Patient came to Richardson Clinic to get laetrile treatment and recommendations for dietary change to increase metabolism. Patient reported that after the 3rd-4th injection of laetrile, the pain was gone, her arm function returned to normal, she had increased stamina, and her overall health improved. Over a year later, patient's tumors were gone and never returned. December 1973, Male, Age: 17 Tumor in Lungs and Bones Patient had tumor in the left knee, and leg was amputated above the knee. Three months later, tumors were found in the lungs. Surgeons removed tumors in both lungs, and patient went on chemotherapy for five months, losing all his hair and being perpetually sick. Another tumor appeared on a chest X-ray. Family traveled from Indiana to the Richardson Clinic in California, and was immediately put on laetrile treatment, diet change for metabolic increase, and pancreatic enzymes. Over a year later, patient reported that his tumors went away, he was able to build up his muscles, and now he goes biking, swimming, fishing, hunting, works forty hours per week, and does many other activities he could not do under mainstream medicine. December 1972, Female, Age: 38 Tumor in Lungs Surgeon performed amputation of right breast, and received radiation treatment. Over two years later, patient developed tumors at the site of radiation treatment. Tumors found in both lungs, and patient was told she had only two months to live. Surgery would result in permanent hospitalization on a breathing machine, so patient decided to visit the Richardson Clinic. Patient was started on laetrile and dietary change for metabolic increase, and within three months, she reported she felt much better. She no longer coughed up blood, she could breathe easier, and even started jogging. Soon after, patient reported the tumors never returned, she has no pain, and continues her normal daily routine. April 1975, Male, Age: 55 Tumor in Colon and Liver Patient had a tumor the size of a tennis ball in the descending colon, along with many other small tumors in various locations, including the liver. A colostomy was performed, but the liver tumors remained because surgery was impossible. Patients who suffer inoperable tumors on the liver usually die within six months. A week after surgery, patient came to the Richardson Clinic, was put on laetrile and a diet change to increase metabolism. Soon after, all of patient's symptoms were gone, and two years later, reported that he was living a normal, healthy life. January 1975, Female, Age: 72 Tumor in Rectum Patient developed tumor in rectum and surgeon removed it. Postop analysis discovered more tumors, and patient overheard her physician say to another physician that she was "too old to bother salvaging." Patient refused further treatment and, never had been a drinker in her life, decided to drink herself to death since she was too old to "salvage." She was later discovered passed out from attempting suicide through alcohol, and after rescue, a friend suggested the Richardson Clinic. Patient was started on metabolic diet change and laetrile, and just one week later, she reported that she had never felt better in her life. Patient never went on to have any suggested surgeries, radiation, or chemotherapy, and two years later, she reported that she never had any more symptoms, and remained in excellent health.

Some skeptics might not believe that a physician would say such a thing about a patient, but sadly, American hospitals have become a conveyor belt of self-induced illness, which has transformed them from patient care into a McDonald's-style of medical drive-thru. I am certainly NOT arguing that all physicians have that attitude, but many who work in hospitals become apathetic over the years of witnessing many failures of modern medicine, and the following is the 72-year-old female patient's pathology report of the tumor biopsy:
"She certainly needs local suppression, but did not yet get X-rays of the chest, liver scan, chemistries, etc... After 5-6,000 rads, maybe I might consider abdominoperineal resection [i.e. rectal tumor surgery]—although mortalities in her age group barely make it pay in terms of salvage."
-Patricia Griffin, Laetrile Case Histories: The Richardson Cancer Clinic Experience, Bantam Books, 1977, p. 146, ISBN: 0553114913

In another case of cancer of the rectum, a 64-year-old woman was informed that her tumors were inoperable, and the best they could do was a colostomy, which was essentially rerouting her colon through her abdomen. (She also had tumors in her lungs, but no attempt was made to remove them either.) For her particular diagnosis, John H. Morton, Professor of Surgery, and a Member of the Clinical Cancer Training Committee at the University of Rochester in New York, wrote the following, and although most readers will not understand what he is saying, please bear with me because I will provide a summary afterwards:
"Gastrointestinal neoplasms [i.e. tumors] are mainly of surgical interest since the radiosensitivity of normal gut is high and most adenocarcinomas are radioresistant, producing an unfavorable radiotherapeutic ratio [i.e. it does more harm than good]... Colostomy for incurable rectal lesions is rarely palliative [i.e. the solution does not outweigh the detriment]; such lesions should be removed by abdominoperineal resection [i.e. rectal surgery] when feasible whether or not cure is anticipated... Chemotherapy in the author's experience has rarely been beneficial in metastatic colon cancer. The following statements have, however, appeared in the literature.
'Progressive, symptomatic, disseminated colon carcinoma can be palliated to some degree in about 20% of the patients with 5-fluorouracil... Objective responders show prolonged survival (20 months vs 10 months mean survival for non-responders).'"
-Patricia Griffin, Laetrile Case Histories: The Richardson Cancer Clinic Experience, Bantam Books, 1977, p. 137, ISBN: 0553114913

In simple terms, Morton explained that surgery is preferred over radiation when it comes to any tumors in the gut because the gut is extremely sensitive to radiation, while the tumors are resistant to it. This means that if radiation was used it would do more harm than good.

Morton went on to say that when it comes to colostomies, it is rare that the benefits outweigh the negative effects, and that his recommendation is to never do them, despite the fact that they are still done. He also adds that chemotherapy has almost never been helpful, which tells us that mainstream medical institutions do not have a viable path to health.

Furthermore, Morton adds that only 1 in 5 radiation-treated patients show signs of improvement. Of that 20% whose positive effects outweigh the negative, they only increase their lifespan a short while, or more specifically, if you are part of the 20%, you will be dead in less than two years, and if you are part of the 80%, you will be dead in less than one year.

What option does a person have under the "treatment" of the medical mafia? Either face immediate death or prolong life by a year of excruciating pain and crushing debt that robs children of their inheritance.

Our American society has branded laetrile as poisonous snake oil quackery, despite its demonstrated superior therapeutic effect against cancer. In contrast, ACTUAL poison from radiation "therapy" or chemotherapy is automatically deemed "therapeutic," though it fails to rehabilitate patients, which is the opposite of real therapy.

therapy (n): remedial treatment of mental or bodily disorder; an agency (as treatment) designed or serving to bring about rehabilitation
(See 'therapy', Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary, 2024, [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/therapy#medicalDictionary])

Again, medical professionals claim "success" in "curing" cancer through surgery, a nonsensical notion since they erroneously equate tumors with cancer. They practice symptom-focused medicine by slicing flesh, often mutilating organs in the process, but far be it from me, a mere simpleton, unworthy of treading the grand halls of medical science, to dare suggest that hacking people up is primitive, barbaric, and as foolish as believing the cure for an ear infection is to sever one's head.

Joanne Wilkinson, mother of six from Walnut Creek, California, had tumors in her left thigh, groin, hip, bladder, and kidney, and in 1967, she chose to reject the poison "therapy" from mainstream medical institutions and try laetrile treatment. Her doctor, upset by her decision, warned her that if she did not have her left leg and part of her hip amputated, she would only have about three months to live.


Wilkinson testified:
"Dr. Krebs [referring to Byron Krebs, M.D., brother of Ernst Krebs Jr.] gave me an injection of Laetrile — and the tumor reacted. It got very large — from walnut size to the size of a small lemon — and there was bleeding four or five days. I went back on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday each week for five weeks to get injections, and the tumor then started getting smaller. Five weeks later I could no longer feel it."
-Joanne Wilkinson, quoted by G. Edward Griffin, World Without Cancer, Second Edition, American Media, 1997, p. 134, ISBN: 0912986190

Famous comedian and actor Red Buttons testified that his wife, Alicia, was saved by the use of laetrile:
"Laetrile saved Alicia from cancer. Doctors here in the U.S. gave her only a few months to live last November. But now she is alive and well, a beautiful and vital wife and mother, thanks to God and to those wonderful men who have the courage to stand up for their science."
-Red Buttons, "Comedian Red Buttons Says 'Laetrile Saved My Wife From Death By Cancer,'" The National Tattler, Aug. 19, 1973, p. 5

(See Public Square, "Red Buttons Says 'Laetrile Saved My Wife From Death by Cancer'," Cancer Control Journal, 1973, Vol. 1, No. 3, retrieved Dec 17, 2024, [https://www.publicsquare.com/products/845d52c0-69d8-11ed-b465-50eb7179fd78/V4727241/pdf-red-buttons-says-laetrile-saved-my-wife-from-death-by-cancer--cancer-control-journalsepoct-1973])

Many years ago, I was working a shift with a co-worker, and when I told him about B17, it was one of the rare instances that the person I was talking to found it interesting because his family developed a habit of eating seeds when he was young. He told me that, when he was very little, he remembers his grandfather having cancer, they ordered a large package of seeds, and afterwards, he never remembers his grandfather having cancer anymore, and no one in his family has ever gotten it, which means that his family was unknowingly getting B17.

It is no wonder that, once people figure out the truth about laetrile, they do whatever they can to get it. In the documentary Cover-Up of Promising Cancer Treatment (also called Second Opinion - The Lie of America's War on Cancer), an interview was shown with Joe Kehoe, a cancer patient who left Canada to come to the United States to get laetrile treatment:
"INTERVIEWER: When you go home to Canada, where laetrile is not available, what will you do?
KEHOE: [long pause] I guess I'll die. I can't get it.
INTERVIEWER: Would you be prepared to buy illegally obtained laetrile in order to have it?
KEHOE: I'd steal it.
INTERVIEWER: Do you plan to take any laetrile with you when you leave, even though it's illegal?
KEHOE: Yes.
-Joe Kehoe, quoted by Eric Merola, "Cover-Up Of Promising Cancer Treatment," Moconomy, June 11, 2023, retrieved Dec 18, 2024, [https://youtu.be/ee9KCGZvVfA?t=78]

Numerous testimonials once existed on YouTube, with many people testifying to the cure of their cancer through B17 and laetrile, but during the Big Tech censorship of the 2010s and 2020s, when companies colluded with government agencies and Big Pharma interests, YouTube, a Google subsidiary, removed videos questioning pharmaceutical industry poisons. This included content exposing vaccine dangers and natural cancer therapies. My own videos on cancer and vaccines were also taken down from my YouTube channel between 2021 and 2024. However, some of these videos can still be accessed, including one I reposted on my website about "cancer reversal testimonies" from 2008, archived by the Internet Archive Wayback Machine as of 2024.
(See Internet Archive Wayback Machine, retrieved Dec 18, 2024, [https://web.archive.org/web/20220913125235/https://www.youtube.com/embed/vjVGd2yw_To]; It can be difficult to get it to play for some connections, and some browsers may auto-mute the video, so you will have to unmute it to listen.)

In the same video, a man named Brad talked about a tumor he had on his heart. The tumor was surgically removed, but Brad gives us more of the story:
"[@3:41] We waited three months and went back to my normal work, and we came in for scans again, and the scans showed that this thing had started to grow again. So chemo was our next option because we hadn't heard of any other treatment. We had four courses of the standard chemo... got through it pretty well without many side effects, but then on our final scan, we found out that the chemo wasn't effective, and the cancer was still there... and then they suggested we have stronger doses of chemo or a stem cell transplant; together most likely, or we could have another surgery and have a lump of my lung cut out, just to make sure that they removed everything. We decided that was basically step one, back to the beginning, and we're not going to try that option again... I wasn't going to do that again... but in that time, we just found a lot of people said, hey Brad, have you heard of apricot kernels, and have you heard about diet change... well, we've got nothing to lose; the medical system was still on our side to fall back on. So for about twelve months we did apricot kernels... got into a flaxseed buckwheat diet... we were really looking forward to our next line of scans to find out if we've had any success. To our amazement, what was in my chest had started to shrink from giving that go for about twelve months with vegetable juices... and now we've had all clear results, the scar tissue is shrinking, and we've done very well."
INTERVIEWER: "Have you had any follow-up from anyone in the cancer research industry?"
BRAD: "No I haven't. I know my case was a case study; that I was a different one that had been a tricky situation all along, where the doctor hadn't known what to do. So it was a bit surprising... I haven't been asked how it all happened."

Let's make sure we clarify what this means because a case study is defined as a "detailed description and assessment of a specific situation in the real world created for the purpose of deriving generalizations and other insights from it." So a physician will start a case study—typically a unique case that does not conform to most other cases—to create a basis of research that other physicians can draw upon in future to help them diagnose and treat unique variations of illness.
(See 'case study', Britannica, retrieved Dec 18, 2024, [https://www.britannica.com/science/case-study])

The physicians and surgeons involved had spent months working on Brad's case study, but when Brad had been cured of cancer through unorthodox means, the medical staff did not follow up with him. Not only was there no follow up, but no one bothered to inquire how he was healed, which demonstrates that, in mainstream medical institutions, there is no interest in natural remedies that work; they only have an interest in methods that agree with their preconceived poison ideology.

But what about the claim that no scientific studies have ever been done to prove the efficacy of laetrile? In 1972, a research program on laetrile was conducted at Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in Manhattan under Dr. Kanematsu Sugiura, a highly respected senior laboratory researcher with over 60 years of experience.


"The results clearly show that Amygdalin [B17] significantly inhibits the appearance of lung metastasis in mice bearing spontaneous mammary tumors and increases significantly the inhibition of the growth of the primary tumors... Laetrile also seemed to prevent slightly the appearance of new tumors... The improvement of health and appearance of the treated animals in comparison to controls is always a common observation... Dr. Sugiura has never observed complete regression of these tumors in all his cosmic [i.e. vast] experience with other chemotherapeutic agents."
-Kanematsu Sugiura, "A Summary of the Effect of Amygdalin Upon Spontaneous Mammary Tumors in Mice," Sloan-Kettering report, July 13, 1973

Most Americans are still unaware of Sugiura's full report, and we would never have been able to see it if not for the courageous efforts of Ralph Moss, former Science Writer for Sloan-Kettering from 1974-1977. Sugiura was very protective of his research papers, but Moss befriended him, and in 1975, Sugiura gave Moss a photocopy of his research on amygdalin.

"Table 2 shows that repeated intraperitoneal [i.e. abdominal] injections of 1000 mg/kg/day of Amygdalin for 2 to 15 weeks failed to destroy the spontaneous cancer in mice. However, it caused an inhibition in about 50 percent of the tumors. It also shows Amygdalin had a strong inhibitory effect on the development of new tumors and on lung metastases (11% against 89%) in mice. The general health and appearance of the Amygdalin-treated animals with tumors was much better than that of the controls."
-Kanematsu Sugiura, Mar 1, 1974, research papers provided by Ralph Moss, quoted by Eric Merola, "Cover-Up Of Promising Cancer Treatment," Moconomy, June 11, 2023, retrieved Dec 18, 2024, [https://youtu.be/ee9KCGZvVfA?t=2010]

From this, we can see that B17 treatment stopped the growth of half of the tumors tested. B17 also prevented new tumors from appearing, and increased the overall health of the mice in the experiment, demonstrating a therapeutic effect.

Two months later, Sugiura reported that B17 was very effective in the prevention of new tumors:
"The Table results show that repeated intraperitoneal injections of 2000 mg/kg/day of amygdalin for 4 to 9 weeks had a strong inhibitory effect on the development of lung metastases."
-Kanematsu Sugiura, May 31, 1974, research papers provided by Ralph Moss, quoted by Eric Merola, "Cover-Up Of Promising Cancer Treatment," Moconomy, June 11, 2023, retrieved Dec 18, 2024, [https://youtu.be/ee9KCGZvVfA?t=2063]

Sugiura also tested to see if B17 would completely prevent cancerous tumors, which it did not (for reasons I will give in a moment), but it did REDUCE the amount and size of the tumors that developed:
"The present study shows that for the three quarters of their life span (21 months) the daily prolonged intraperitoneal injections of a large amount of amygdalin did not prevent the development of mammary cancers in mice complete[ly]. However, it had a definite reduction in development of mammary tumors — 70% in controls against 48% in amygdalin-treated mice. It also shows amygdalin had a strong inhibitory effect on the development of lung metastases in mice — 75 per cent inhibition against 22 per cent in controls. The general health and appearance of the amygdalin-treated animals were as good as that of the controls in animals without tumors and that of amygdalin-treated animals without tumors all gained weight."
-Kanematsu Sugiura, May 31, 1974, research papers provided by Ralph Moss, quoted by Eric Merola, "Cover-Up Of Promising Cancer Treatment," Moconomy, June 11, 2023, retrieved Dec 18, 2024, [https://youtu.be/ee9KCGZvVfA?t=2109]

Once again, this demonstrates a significant reduction in tumor growth and a therapeutic effect in the mice treated with B17, and Sugiura noted that the B17-treated mice looked much healthier, with better skin and fur, than those without. The reason the tumors would not be completely removed is that the metabolism of mice is drastically different than the metabolism of men, and so when naturally ingesting amygdalin (i.e. substances like bitter apricot kernels), with a healthy metabolism through proper diet, the tumors will melt away over the course of weeks or months, depending on the prior health and age of the patient.

In another Sugiura report the following year, called "Effect of Amygdalin on Spontaneous Mammary Tumors in Swiss Albino Mice," he wrote:
"It also shows that amygdalin had a strong inhibitory effect on the development of lung metastases in mice — 77 per cent inhibition against 7 per cent inhibition in controls. It is possible that these metastatic growths have been destroyed by the repeated treatment with amygdalin. The general health and appearance of the amygdalin-treated animals were much better than that of the controls."
-Kanematsu Sugiura, "Effect of Amygdalin on Spontaneous Mammary Tumors in Swiss Albino Mice," Feb 8, 1975, research papers provided by Ralph Moss, quoted by Eric Merola, "Cover-Up Of Promising Cancer Treatment," Moconomy, June 11, 2023, retrieved Dec 18, 2024, [https://youtu.be/ee9KCGZvVfA?t=2152]

The effectiveness of tumor prevention in this experiment was 11 times greater with B17 than with the control group. Sugiura also concluded that there was a strong possibility that the tumors were being destroyed by B17.

These papers were given to New York Times reporter Jane Brody, who specialized in health journalism. She came to Sloan-Kettering, interviewed the staff, but never asked to interview Sugiura, and after she left, she wrote a negative review of laetrile in July of 1975:
"The researchers involved said in interviews that the findings had provided no scientific justification for testing laetrile as a possible therapy for cancer patients."
-Jane E. Brody, "4 Cancer Centers Find No Proof Of Therapy Value in Illegal Drug," New York Times, July 21, 1975, retrieved Dec 19, 2024, [https://www.nytimes.com/1975/07/21/archives/4-cancer-centers-find-no-proof-of-therapy-value-in-illegal-drug.html]

Was this reporter paid to lie? Was she simply lazy, publishing an article without proper investigation to secure her paycheck? Did she believe she was reporting accurate information because Sloan-Kettering staff lied to her? It could be any of these, or all of the above—we cannot be certain, but what is certain is that Brody's report is NOT the truth.

In the previous chapter, we covered the pharmaceutical takeover of American medical schools, and if you are curious as to why the Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center was covering up the cure for cancer, please note that John Rockefeller began donating to Sloan-Kettering in 1927 to get his paid representatives on the board of directors. During Sugiura's laetrile tests in the 1970s, there were three key people sitting on the board of directors: James Rockefeller, Lawrence Rockefeller, and William Rockefeller. In fact, the Sloan-Kettering headquarters in New York City is sitting on land that was donated by the Rockefeller family, and therefore, the Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center operates in the best interests of its benefactor: Rockefeller-owned pharmaceutical companies.

On the off chance that some readers might not think this is enough evidence to say the Rockefellers and Sloan-Kettering are involved in a conspiracy to hide legitimate cancer treatments from the public for the sake of money, the following image is a document from Sloan-Kettering that was retrieved in a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request. This document contains the minutes of a meeting on June 2, 1974, in which the staff at Sloan-Kettering discussed with FDA board members the details of laetrile testing.

(Click for larger image.)

Please note the highlighted quote:
"Sloan Kettering is not enthusiastic about studying amygdalin, but would like to study CN [i.e .Cyanide] releasing drugs."
-H.L. Walker, Meeting with NCI, FDA, and Sloan-Kettering, July 2, 1974, p.4

To clarify, in the summer of 1974, Sloan-Kettering knew FULL WELL that Sugiura's experiments yielded positive results in fighting cancer, and we know this because they had an interest in "[Cyanide] releasing drugs." Imagine if we applied this to scurvy, it would be like saying, "We are not interested in Vitamin C, but we would like to study ascorbic acid releasing drugs." If they believed that amygdalin showed "no change in effects" on tumors (as they lied about in their meeting), then why did they want to explore "cyanide releasing drugs?"

One of the physicians from Sloan-Kettering, Chester Stock, admitted that more studies should be done on amygdalin's positive results:
"Dr. Stock thinks studies on amygdalin should be made particularly regarding pain relief and reduction of lung metastases."
-H.L. Walker, Meeting with NCI, FDA, and Sloan-Kettering, July 2, 1974, p.4

Remember that laetrile was already invented, and Sloan-Kettering held no patent for it, nor could they patent apricot kernels. Consequently, they concealed the results from the public to focus on developing a cyanide-based drug, knowing it was effective in laetrile, so they could patent it and reap billions, if not trillions, in profits over the coming decades.

If you still do not believe what I am saying, that Sloan-Kettering knows about the effectiveness of B17 and is hiding it, read this quote from the minutes of that meeting:
"The Sloan Kettering group believe their results show that amygdalin used in animals with tumors show: a decrease in lung metastases; slower tumor growth; and pain relief."
-H.L. Walker, Meeting with NCI, FDA, and Sloan-Kettering, July 2, 1974, p.3

Let's summarize this: On page three of the minutes, Sloan-Kettering admitted that amygdalin (B17) had a positive effect in treating cancerous tumors in mice, but on the next page, no more than three paragraphs later, they said they have no interest in studying amygdalin, and would rather create "drugs" that release cyanide. Furthermore, one of the Sloan-Kettering Institute's representatives at this meeting, Lloyd Old, went on to do more collaborative experiments in an attempt to create a drug from amygdalin, the substance he just helped to condemn publicly, as seen in a letter he wrote to Dr. Mario Soto De Leon on Jan 24, 1975, just six months after the July 1974 FDA meeting:

"Dear Dr. Soto: It was indeed a pleasure to have you and Dr. Sanen visit our Institute and share with us your clinical experience with Amygdalin in cancer patients. I was pleased to hear from Dr. Sanen that our proposed collaborative controlled trials have the approval of your hospital. We are looking forward to a fruitful exchange of information."
-Lloyd Old, cited by Ralph Moss, quoted by Eric Merola, "Cover-Up Of Promising Cancer Treatment," Moconomy, June 11, 2023, retrieved Dec 18, 2024, [https://youtu.be/ee9KCGZvVfA?t=1355]

Notice that Lloyd Old said "OUR proposed collaborative controlled trials," which means the Mexican clinic trials were set up at the request of Sloan-Kettering. This is conclusive evidence that Sloan-Kettering was studying the benefits of amygdalin long after they told the public it had no effect, and that it was poisonous quackery.


Six weeks after this letter, on March 4, 1975, another meeting was held at Sloan-Kettering about amygdalin and laetrile, which was led by Frank J. Rauscher, the leader of the National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the time, and attended by officials from the FDA, the previously mentioned members of Sloan-Kettering—Lloyd Old, Chester Stock, among others—and one in particular that should be noted, which was Dan S. Martin of the Catholic Medical Center. (CMC)
-Cited by Ralph Moss, quoted by Eric Merola, "Cover-Up Of Promising Cancer Treatment," Moconomy, June 11, 2023, retrieved Dec 18, 2024, [https://youtu.be/ee9KCGZvVfA?t=1421]

Martin was the primary inventor of the CD₈F₁ mouse (which produced its own tumors at roughly 10 months after birth) that was used in cancer clinical trials, and this was the type of mouse Sugiura had used in his experiments with amygdalin. Martin filed a lawsuit against the institution he worked for, and he lost that battle, which cost him his savings and career, the NCI turned down all of his grant requests, and he lost all of his customers for his CD₈F₁ mice.

Soon after the 1975 meeting he attended, the NCI gave Martin a million-dollar contract, which would be almost $6 million in 2024:


"A million-dollar contract has just been given to Dr. Martin for his unique breeding colony of 30,000 spontaneous-mammary-tumor-bearing mice, the NCI director points out, 'to make those animals available for further tests, to see whether Dr. Sugiura's initial findings at Sloan-Kettering might not have been right.'"
-Medical World News, Vol. 16, Aug 11, 1975, retrieved Dec 20, 2024, [https://digitalcommons.library.tmc.edu/medicalworldnewspub/2732/]

This should raise eyebrows because they had already declared that Sugiura did not find any therapeutic effect in the use of amygdalin on the mice, so why would they spend a large amount of money to run tests to disprove an experiment that allegedly showed no efficacy? Martin, who was forced into the medical wasteland of has-beens, was suddenly resurrected from his grave, somehow magically transformed into an amygdalin expert, and spoke prolifically against laetrile, which makes no sense—unless he was being paid to do so.

In the summer of 1977, Martin was featured in the New York Times in an article called "Laetrile: A 'Fraud'." Later that fall, he wrote an opinion piece that was published in an American Cancer Society journal called "Laetrile—A Dangerous Drug," and many newspapers regurgitated his public relations statements in various articles.

(See Daniel S. Martin, "Laetrile: A 'Fraud'," New York Times, June 3, 1977, retrieved Dec 20, 2024, [https://www.nytimes.com/1977/06/03/archives/laetrile-a-fraud.html]; See also Daniel S. Martin, "Laetrile—A Dangerous Drug," American Cancer Society, Sept/Oct, 1977, DOI: 10.3322/canjclin.27.5.301, retrieved Dec 20, 2024, [https://acsjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.3322/canjclin.27.5.301])

What is hilarious about Martin's "Dangerous Drug" article (which was clearly a declaration of his loyalty and undying devotion to the medical mafia's religion) is that he said that laetrile was "a cunning, money-making fraud" because all one needs to do is look at the money being made when comparing cancer treatments. A bag of organic, bitter apricot kernels (which is what you should get if you want a high concentration of B17) costs about $25-50 (as of 2024, depending on the size of the bag), and a shot of laetrile would cost only a few times more than that at most, but depending on where the tumors are located, an entire chemotherapy treatment can cost anywhere from $10,000 to $200,000 or more (not including other meds and surgeries required before and afterwards), so which method do you think is "a cunning, money-making fraud?"
(See Cost Helper Health, "How Much Does Chemotherapy Cost?," retrieved Dec 20, 2024, [https://health.costhelper.com/chemo.html])

In July of 1977, Senator Ted Kennedy was going to hold a Congressional hearing on the "Banning of the Drug Laetrile From Interstate Commerce by FDA," but this was going to be a problem for Sloan-Kettering because Lewis Thomas, the President of Sloan-Kettering Institute at that time, was scheduled to speak. Why was that a problem? Because they were afraid that pro-laetrile speakers were going to be there to expose what they had covered up, so they needed to use the corrupt corporate media to get ahead of this by swaying public perception.
(See GovInfo, "Senate Hearing, 95th Congress - Banning of the drug Laetrile from interstate commerce by FDA: hearing before the Subcommittee on Health and Scientific Research of the Committee on Human Resources," July 12, 1977, retrieved Dec 24, 2024, [https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/CHRG-95shrg96492O])

If Thomas were required to testify directly about the experiments, he would have to admit under oath that laetrile produced positive results. Thus, the strategy was to craft an official conclusion from Sloan-Kettering's leadership, allowing Thomas to reference it at the Congressional hearing rather than discuss the experiments themselves. Sloan-Kettering hastily organized a press conference in Manhattan on June 15, 1977, partly coordinated by Ralph Moss, where nearly 100 reporters gathered to hear the results of the four-year study on amygdalin/laetrile.

Robert Good, President of Sloan-Kettering Institute, said:
"We tried to find out from scientific information available whether there was any real scientific evidence that the drug amygdalin, or so-called "laetrile," had any effect on cancer in any form... and there was no such scientific evidence."
-Robert Good, quoted in "Cover-Up Of Promising Cancer Treatment," Moconomy, June 11, 2023, retrieved Dec 24, 2024, [https://youtu.be/ee9KCGZvVfA?t=2889]

If you read the quote carefully you can see this was a redundant public relations statement because of the repetition of certain words that they thought would make the audience feel like it was very prestigious and technical. Essentially, what he said was "We tried to look at science to find the science, but we couldn't find any science," and I thought to myself that if he had brought his science kit with him, the science would not have so eluded him so scientifically.

Chester Stock, one of the Vice-Presidents at Sloan-Kettering Institute, said:
"Our summary statement is: We do not have evidence supporting taking amygdalin to clinical trial."
-Chester Stock, quoted in "Cover-Up Of Promising Cancer Treatment," Moconomy, June 11, 2023, retrieved Dec 24, 2024, [https://youtu.be/ee9KCGZvVfA?t=2881]

Lewis Thomas, the Director of Squibb Pharmaceuticals and President of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, said:
"There is no evidence in the several animal models that have been studied that laetrile, or amygdalin, possesses any biological activity with respect to cancer, one way or the other."
-Lewis Thomas, quoted in "Cover-Up Of Promising Cancer Treatment," Moconomy, June 11, 2023, retrieved Dec 24, 2024, [https://youtu.be/ee9KCGZvVfA?t=2911]

By the documentation, we can clearly see that these men lied to the media and the American public. If any reader cannot see the deception and conspiracy in these statements, then you may as well stop reading this book and go do something more productive with your day, because nothing else in this book would convince you otherwise.

These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.
-Proverbs 6:16-19

Sugiura was interviewed by the press after the conference, and his response was confusing:
"REPORTER: Dr. Sugiura, do you agree with the conclusions of the summary statement?
SUGIURA: Which conclusion?
REPORTER: The conclusion that laetrile does not either cure or prevent cancer.
SUGIURA: I agree—of course, my results don't agree—but I agree with what our institution says.
REPORTER: Why? If your results don't agree?
SUGIURA: Well, I don't know why, but I think—
REPORTER: Dr. Sugiura, do you stick by your results?
SUGIURA: Yes, I stick! I hope somebody will be able to confirm my results later on."
-Kanematsu Sugiura, quoted in "Cover-Up Of Promising Cancer Treatment," Moconomy, June 11, 2023, retrieved Dec 24, 2024, [https://youtu.be/ee9KCGZvVfA?t=2956]

Sloan-Kettering misled the public through cunning wording, claiming the experiment was supposed to be double-blind, meaning Sugiura would not know the experiment's details until its completion. Sugiura was tasked only with observing the mice, not treating them; another scientist injected the mice with laetrile, so Sugiura would not know which mice received treatment and which received only a saline (i.e. salt) solution. However, Sugiura told the media he could identify the laetrile-treated mice by their shiny coats, healthier weight, and greater activity, so Sloan-Kettering declared the experiment was compromised and invalid because it was meant to be blind, which is absurd because it was done blind, but the positive results of laetrile were so overwhelming, even a child could see the difference.

The fact that Sugiura could tell which ones had been treated proved that laetrile was effective at fighting cancer, but despite his efforts to tell the public the truth, Sugiura's words had no effect. To this day, the legacy, mainstream (fake) news media parrots the conclusions of the liars without any further investigation:
"Federal health officials warned Internet users to beware of a concoction made of apricot seeds that's touted as a cancer cure, as a Florida court case became the government's latest attempt to quell a resurgence of laetrile. In the 1970s... a National Cancer Institute study concluded that the substance did not fight cancer. Experts also warned that laetrile pills could cause cyanide poisoning."
-ABC News, "FDA Cracks Down on Laetrile Resurgence," Sept 7, 2014, retrieved Dec 19, 2024, [https://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=117990]

If any readers are interested in looking at Dr. Sugiura's full report, it was published by the Journal of Surgical Oncology, but that publication was a crafty deception because it stuffed Sugiura's research into the middle of a lengthy, negative review of his work by some of the previously mentioned liars. (e.g. Chester Stock, Daniel Martin, etc.) Most researchers and reporters will only read the abstract to that report, which says they, "do not have evidence to support taking amygdalin to clinical trial," but will not read Sugiura's study (entitled "Six Experiments on the Therapy of Amygdalin on Spontaneous Mammary Tumors in CD₈F₁ Mice") that came to drastically different conclusions, namely, that tumors in the mice without laetrile treatment were three times more common (i.e. 90% metastasis in untreated, versus 27% in laetrile treated), and the untreated had substantially worse health overall.
(See Chester C. Stock, Daniel S. Martin & Kanematsu Sugiura, "Antitumor tests of amygdalin in spontaneous animal tumor systems," National Library of Medicine, 1978;10(2):89-123, DOI: 10.1002/jso.2930100203, retrieved Dec 24, 2024, [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/347176/])

The truth about laetrile has not only been discovered in America, but also by other nations. In 1976, an Israeli group of physicians did research on the results of laetrile at clinics in the USA and Mexico, and when they returned, David Rubin, surgeon and cancer researcher at Hadassah Hospital in Jerusalem, submitted his report to the Israeli Ministry of Health:
"a. Contrary to many allegations in both the scientific and lay literature, laetrile [B17] is not quackery.
b. Laetrile is non-toxic even in very large doses.
c. Laetrile has a definite palliative [relief] effect. We cannot, at this stage of our investigations, say that it inhibits tumors, but the evidence we have suggests that it does. We must do controlled studies to rule out the possibility that prior therapies had some effect on the tumors that stopped growing. However, we doubt that the regressions we observed were due to "delayed effects" of other therapies because, in our experience, such delayed effects rarely, if ever, occur."
-David Rubin, "Use of Laetrile in the Prevention and Treatment of Cancer," Report #2, Oct 25, 1976

The results have been found time and time again by many other physicians and scientists. Now let's ask the question that I typically receive before I have relayed all this evidence:

If it works, why do so few people seem to know about it?
Ralph Moss exposed the Sloan-Kettering cover-up at a press conference, only to be fired and have his career destroyed. John Richardson saved hundreds of lives through his clinic, yet was arrested and had his clinic raided by police. Thus, I will leave it to the reader: Can you think of any reason why vitamin B17 remains unknown to the public at large?



 

Seven-year-old Kerry Alderson was waiting patiently in examination room #3 in the Richardson Clinic when wailing sirens sounded, and police and unmarked vehicles surrounded the clinic. A dangerous substance called "laetrile" was in use, and so officers surrounded the building with guns drawn, and ten officers burst through the front door to show their warrant to the receptionist.
(See John A. Richardson, Laetrile Case Histories: The Richardson Cancer Clinic Experience, Bantam Books, 1977, p. 14, ISBN: 0553114913)

Richardson was thrown up against the wall, frisked, and the entire clinic was searched to find laetrile, although they could not find much because they did not know what they were looking for, and according to Richardson, there were some vials of it sitting out in the open which were not seized because they did not recognize it. His car keys were confiscated, and officers were told to get his briefcase out of the trunk of his car, where most of his important papers on laetrile were kept, meaning that he had been under surveillance for quite some time.

All patients were ordered to leave, except one little girl in room #3, who was there for her laetrile treatment of osteogenic sarcoma (i.e. bone cancer), and she was so sick unto death, Richardson did not think she would make it at first, but she had responded well to the treatments, having less pain, increased appetite, and positive weight gain. However, her leg was vile and sickly-looking due to the damage of the tumor, and the inspector from the California Health Department turned pale when looking at it.

The inspector permitted Richardson to treat Kerry, with the intent to use the interaction to identify the laetrile vials and gather evidence for use against him in court. Aware of this, Richardson only changed Kerry's bandages and sent her back to her parents, who were furious with the police officers. Three days later, Kerry died, her life potentially savable if not for the interference of the medical mafia and unconstitutional law enforcement.

This is why Americans should NEVER trust government. Everyone involved in the investigation and arrest at the Richardson clinic should have been charged and put on trial.

Richardson and his two nurses were cuffed and paraded out the front door, with TV cameras already on the scene. The news media was informed ahead of time, and they were permitted free access to film and photograph any part of the clinic, which means that the Department of Health wanted a trial-by-media, in which Richardson, appearing "guilty" of dangerous crimes without evidence, would have his reputation destroyed.

Four hours later, Richardson and his nurses were released from jail because there was no lawful reason to hold them. After his arrest was aired on the news, many of his patients and neighbors avoided him, as is common with those who assume what they see on television (or today, the internet) is automatically true, without first waiting for the evidence.

Because Richardson was an honest physician doing commendable work, some friends and family rallied to support his defense against the medical mafia and government goons. Months of pre-trial hearings and depositions ensued, and, as expected, the crowds of protesters diminished over time, a key reason prosecutors prolonged the process.

There is a rule of thumb that is known by many attorneys and judges: the innocent party almost always wants a speedy trial, while the guilty party almost always wants to drag it out as long as possible. Sadly, the judges in our modern-day corrupt American judicial system often give sympathy to the guilty party by allowing these trials to stretch out for years in some cases.

The expenses were piling up as Richardson's trial began, and the prosecution spent an entire month presenting witnesses to make him look like an evil quack. Despite their efforts to try to paint him as an evil man, seven jury members refused to give him a guilty verdict, and for those of you who understand how the court system works, you will know this was far from being over.

A hung jury allows the prosecution to retry the case, posing a greater risk to defendants as prosecutors identify jurors likely to vote guilty and pinpoint the most persuasive evidence. The costly ordeal of pre-trial hearings, depositions, and another four-week trial was repeated, pitting Richardson's meager savings versus near-endless taxpayer funding, as the medical mafia aimed to bankrupt him, with lawyer fees amounting to roughly $600 per hour in 2024 terms of inflation.

According to Richard's testimony, this new jury may have had some plants:
"Juror Lela Herbert told us later that she was offered financial help for her decorator shop if only she would change her vote to 'guilty'. Between shouting insults and threats, on the one hand, and offers of money, on the other, they literally had her in tears. Several of the others ultimately changed their votes under similar pressure, but she stood firm and would not compromise her convictions. The final vote was eleven to one."
(See John A. Richardson, Laetrile Case Histories: The Richardson Cancer Clinic Experience, Bantam Books, 1977, p. 73, ISBN: 0553114913)

After another hung jury, the prosecution tried again, but this time, the judge reasonably denied another trial, seeing it as a waste of taxpayer resources. In his book, Richardson documented many other instances of fraud, deception, bribes, and perjury on the part of the prosecutor's office, and sadly, this is nothing new when it comes to career prosecutors in just about any state in the country; they have far too much time, power, and funding, in addition to growing bitter and losing natural affection over many years in a job that requires one to think negatively to win a case.

As I said in the last chapter, laetrile/amygdalin/B17 is NOT a lone miracle cure, and a dietary change is necessary for it to work, which is something that Richardson always told his patients, especially those who had already received amputations and radiation treatment. Some of his patients died soon after they started taking laetrile, but it was not because of laetrile; rather, it was because of the years of damage from the tumors, surgeries, drugs, and radiation.

Due to the brainwashing of mainstream media, most cancer patients put their trust into the medical mafia, and only came to Richardson as a last resort, after they had lost all other hope. Sadly, some did not live very long after laetrile treatments began, but others survived, and those who got B17 in combination with a metabolic diet change were willing to defend it against an oppressive government.

Richardson documented many other physicians who had been persecuted for using laetrile to cure cancer. While orthodox medical "professionals" were using poison that has been proven to be most ineffective at treating cancer, the following was happening to honest physicians using laetrile:

1956 - Arthur Harris: Threatened by a California medical board (at a 2AM meeting) with suspension and prosecution. Picketers were hired to stand in front of his office and label him a "quack." 1967 - Maurice Kowan: Charged with fraud, and found guilty by a jury who was not allowed to see the evidence that laetrile worked. At 70 years old, he was sentenced to 60 days in jail and a $4400 fine. 1973 - Byron and Ernst Krebs: Arrested, charged, and convicted for using laetrile. Fined $500 each and given three years suspension from practicing medicine. 1975 - Stewart Jones: Had medical license suspended for two years by California Board of Medical Examiners. Five months later, state agents arrested him for having one vial of laetrile and ten tablets. 1975 - James Privitera: Arrested, charged, and convicted with conspiracy to use laetrile. He was sentenced to 180 days in jail and five years of probation. 1976 - Seymour Weisman: Arrested, charged, and convicted in Arizona for transporting an illegal substance, laetrile. He spent 90 days in federal prison.

Let's look closer at Dr. Maurice Kowan's case:
"A Los Angeles physician has been indicted by the county Grand Jury on charges of attempted grand theft for the alleged illegal use of drugs to remedy cancer, it had been announced today. Named in the indictment was Dr. Maurice H. Kowan... He also was charged with violating the state Cancer Control Act by purportedly representing to a patient that Laetrile, a drug made from the extract of apricot pits, would alleviate or cure cancer."
-Valley News, "Jury Indicts Physician in Cancer Cure," Van Nuys, California, Sept 19, 1968, p. 78

A Grand Jury, typically composed of about 20 individuals, is selected to evaluate a prosecutor's case to determine if it warrants a trial, and please note that a Grand Jury reviews ONLY the evidence presented by the prosecution, without input from a defense attorney or contradictory evidence. As the saying goes, "You can get a Grand Jury to indict a ham sandwich," a phrase coined by Sol Wachtler, former Chief Judge of the New York Court of Appeals, because the secrecy, low standard of proof, and absence of defense make it far too easy for prosecutors to secure indictments that seem convincing enough for corrupt news media to report to an ignorant audience prone to emotional reactions without all the facts.

During Dr. Kowan's trial, the jury was not allowed to see any of the clinic's results that laetrile was healing cancer patients, and no witnesses were allowed to testify of the therapeutic results they received from Kowan's treatment. The only thing allowed in court was whether or not he used laetrile. The Jury was railroaded into a guilty verdict, and Ira Reiner, the prosecuting attorney, faced the jury and stated:
"This is not a kindly old man. This is the most thoroughly evil person the imagination can concoct. He's taking advantage of people for money. We can understand people who kill in rage. What do you think of a man who can kill at nine dollars per visit?... This man has to be stopped. He is very dangerous. This case goes far beyond the walls of this courtroom. The way to stop him is a guilty verdict."
-L.A. News-Herald and Journal, "Kowan Trial Nearing End in City Court," July 23, 1967, retrieved Jan 3, 2025, [https://newspaperarchive.com/logan-herald-journal-jul-23-1967-p-1/]

In the last chapter, we learned that chemotherapy alone, without any other additional treatments and fees, can range from $10,000 to $200,000, but Kowan, in his supposedly "evil" intent, sought to prey on these poor, helpless victims for a mere $9 per visit. Based on the words of this prosecutor, should we not conclude that corporate medical giants and pharmaceutical cartels are the most evil people "the imagination can concoct?" Are they not "taking advantage of people for money?" Are these "medical professionals" not people who can "kill at [thousands of] dollars per visit?" Are they not "very dangerous?" Should they not "be stopped?"

Sandi Rog, a cancer survivor who was healed by the use of B17, recounts the costs of her radiation treatments:
"It was around that time, shortly after radiation, that I went to see my naturopathic doc in AZ. He put me on a 'million' supplements (okay, it felt like a million; I had about twenty bottles of supplements prescribed by him). And visiting him cost us approximately 1200 to 1700 dollars a day (yes, PER DAY—and that was with HUGE discounts), plus another 9800 dollars for one particular IV."
-Sandi Rog, "My Cancer Story," Aug 23, 2012, retrieved Jan 3, 2025, [https://web.archive.org/web/20161011115352/beatcancerwithb17.blogspot.com/p/my-win-against-cancer.html]

This prosecutor was bickering and railing over $9 per visit, but did not mention a word about the costs of orthodox poison "therapy." That nine dollars in 2024 would be about $50 per visit, while Sandi's chemo treatment would have averaged about $2200 per visit. Even the American Cancer Society will not list price averages on its website (i.e. the only thing it says is that "cancer care and treatment can cost a lot"), and if you find it odd that the ACS will not give any details, the reasons for that will become clear in the next chapter.
(See American Cancer Society, "Things to Know About the Cost of Your Cancer Treatment" retrieved Jan 3, 2025, [https://www.cancer.org/cancer/financial-insurance-matters/managing-costs/the-cost-of-cancer-treatment.html])

But Dr. Kowan's $9 per visit charge made him into a "very dangerous" man who took "advantage of people for money." Government officials offered Kowan a deal to drop the charges if he signed a written agreement stating that laetrile had no therapeutic effect on cancer, but he refused to sign it, so he was charged a $4,400 fine (which is roughly $26,000 in 2024), 60 days in prison, and was prohibited from seeing a cancer patient for three years, because in America, you must be whipped for the crime of challenging the medical mafia.

Many of the proponents of laetrile were shut down in the 1970s by government gangsters, and not many have picked up the fight since then because it is too costly. However, one man, whose life was saved by B17, led the charge once again in the 21st century, and was quickly arrested and put in prison.

Jason Vale was an arm wrestling champion who, at age 18, was diagnosed with terminal cancer. He had a tumor the size of a grapefruit, and he went through surgery and chemotherapy, just as the doctors told him to do (and just as those same doctors would not do themselves), but it did not fix the problem.

Numerous people have claimed to me that their friend or family member "beat cancer" through surgery and radiation, but I face their rage when I explain that it did not resolve anything, failed to address the root cause, and the tumors would likely return. This occurs far more often than not, and Jason Vale experienced it too, realizing that continued surgery and chemo would not solve the underlying problem.

He instead turned to B17 and laetrile, and it saved his life. His tumors went into remission and did not come back. He was so inspired by this, he wanted to help others, so he sold apricot seeds as a "cure for cancer," even saying in interviews that it was a "miracle cure," and the FDA stepped in immediately to put Vale behind bars.


"REPORTER: He's in a maximum security prison in Westchester with some of the most dangerous criminals in the state. His bail's been set at almost a million dollars, but he's not a murderer. He's not a rapist or a drug dealer. Believe it or not, the reason this guy's behind bars is because of... apricot seeds."
-FOX News, "Natural Cancer Cure? (Vitamin B17) Man Cures Himself Then Thrown In Jail," DAVID TRAVIS, Jan 13, 2011, retrieved Jan 7, 2025, [https://youtu.be/WvKQrATZ6bU?si=e6Exg5MHf1kLo7Me]

The first mistake Jason made was not understanding that B17 is only one part of the cure for cancer, not a "miracle cure" because it is only one part of a metabolic diet, which we will cover in more detail in chapter nine. Because of this misconception, he labeled the seeds a "cure for cancer" and sold them via an internet business.

The second mistake Jason made was selling laetrile, which has been banned by the FDA for sale in the United States. This is one of the many reasons the FDA needs to be completely dismantled, and never return. The FDA, contrary to the interests of the American public, has arrested and charged anyone they can find who sells laetrile because it is a direct threat to the multi-trillion dollar cancer industry, and Big Pharma lobbyists use the strong arm of government to choke the cure.

The third mistake Jason made was not researching the history of laetrile. Perhaps if he had understood what had happened to previous generations of Americans who fought to help people heal their cancer, he would have known how dangerous Big Pharma can be when legitimate competition threatens their medical monopoly.

I want readers to note that there is no law (and there can be no law) preventing you from eating apricot seeds. You are well within your rights to buy apricot seeds and eat them. I eat apricot seeds daily, and I can assure you, no one is going to show up at your door to arrest you for it, but if you choose to sell them, you must be careful how you advertise it because the medical mafia and government gangsters will swoop in to attack if you say the wrong thing, despite the fact that we have a First Amendment that is supposed to protect our right to free speech.

The latest news I heard about Jason Vale was that he served a five-year prison sentence and was released, but his tumors returned during incarceration due to being forced to consume processed prison food. He had two liver tumors, and after his release, he resumed eating apricot seeds, which eliminated the tumors. Since returning to a natural diet, Vale has reportedly had no further cancer issues, but out of fear of the medical mafia and government goons, he no longer sells seeds or laetrile.

So getting back to the question I am so often asked before I can provide any details about how to heal oneself of cancer: Why has no one heard of this? Why does your physician not know about it? Why have most Americans never heard of B17, amygdalin, or laetrile? Because the American medical mafia uses government gangsters to chase down honest Americans and make them an offer they could not refuse by forcing them into a trial-by-media, ruining their reputation, bankrupting them, and jailing them.

Aforementioned physician Stewart Jones was being tailed by Natasha Benton, an undercover agent for the Food and Drug Branch of the California Department of Health, who was ordered by James Eddington, head of the Berkeley fraud division, to investigate Jones. Jones was charged and brought to trial, and outside the courtroom, the defense attorney overheard Eddington order Benton to lie in her report about Jones and his use of laetrile, but she refused to lie under oath.

Since the prosecution could not persuade their key witness to lie, they chose not to call Benton to testify. The defense, recognizing her testimony would aid their case and that she was already on the witness list, called her to the stand:
"BENTON: Before any report is always written, Mr. Eddington left instruction what for [sic] me to write. After I read these instructions, I telephoned Mr. Eddington telling him I didn't feel all those instructions were correct. He told me, 'Go ahead and write what I said, because this is what we need to get a conviction.' I wrote as close to what he said as I could, according to my conscience. But I still don't feel that I told the truth in that report. Later, on June 1st, I was shown a quite lengthy report. He told me to sign that report before I went before the Grand Jury, and I could read it later; we didn't have time at that time.
ATTORNEY GILL [Defense]: Did you sign that report without reading it?
BENTON: Yes, I did. Later I read a small portion of it. That isn't the report I wrote. Outside of this courtroom he admitted that it isn't the report I wrote. He said my report - quote - was so sh**ty, that that's why he changed it - close quote."
(See John A. Richardson, Laetrile Case Histories: The Richardson Cancer Clinic Experience, Bantam Books, 1977, p. 74-75, ISBN: 0553114913)

Note that James Eddington also investigated John Richardson at his clinic, and attempted to get his agents to claim that laetrile was a "cancer cure" to bring charges against Jones. However, Jones, like Richardson, never called laetrile a "cancer cure," stating instead that it is a treatment for tumors, while the true "cure" lies in a balanced, organic, metabolic diet.

The media fails (or refuses) to report these details, not only due to their lack of understanding but often because they have no interest in understanding, as the headline "Quack Doctor Scams Patients" is far more sensational and likely to attract views. This fuels a trial-by-media narrative that drives oppression against honest medical practitioners.

For example, The Stanford Daily reported on the case:
"Earlier Friday, Louis Castro, deputy state attorney general prosecuting Jones, said that many patients died 'a very miserable and painful death because they were relying on Laetrile... There is one thing that all quacks have in common: they disregard the rules of evidence... The scientific method simply does not exist in the quack mind."
-Bob Zuckerman, "Hearing Probes Laetrile Case," The Stanford Daily, Vol. 167, Issue 12, Feb 19, 1975, p. 1

As I noted in earlier chapters, the issue is that most patients turn to a metabolic diet and laetrile treatment as a LAST resort, only AFTER enduring radiation poisoning, which severely damages vital organs. Many seek laetrile too late, and though a metabolic diet with laetrile/B17 can address cancer and tumors, patients may still die from the harm caused by amputation and radiation. Yet, the government gangsters, medical mafia, and fake news media scapegoat laetrile, refusing to acknowledge their own ignorance and arrogance, as that would require them to take responsibility.

Ralph Moss, former Science Writer for Sloan-Kettering, and author of The Cancer Industry, along with 14 other books, devoted his life to cancer therapy research around the world. Moss admitted in interviews later in his life that he lied on behalf of Sloan-Kettering for a time, but there reached a point where he knew they were covering up the truth about laetrile as a cancer treatment, and he could no longer lie for them.

Without Sloan-Kettering's prior knowledge, Moss spoke at a press conference on Nov 18, 1977:
"The scientists involved had made what you could generously call 'errors' in the report. The most glaring error was they said that all of the chemotherapy that's currently in use against human breast cancer could cure, or cause objective anti-cancer effect in the mouse, and that laetrile could not cause any anti-cancer effect in the mouse, so therefore, laetrile was obviously much worse than standard chemotherapy. So this was an out-and-out lie. It could not have been a mistake because the man who wrote the statement himself proved that no known drug could cure or even partially relieve cancer in this mouse. Their own papers prove that chemotherapy didn't work in this system.
There's two implications to this: If laetrile did indeed have the effect in mice, then laetrile is in fact better than all the known anti-cancer drugs. The other implication is that since no drugs were known to cure tumors in this mouse, and then they went ahead and tested laetrile in this same system, it seems pretty obvious that they expected laetrile to fail in this system. But laetrile didn't fail.
All told there were twenty positive experiments with laetrile done at Sloan-Kettering between 1972 and 1977. Laetrile alone never cured any cancers in mice at Sloan-Kettering. Laetrile had certain positive effects in stopping the spread of the cancer. Sugiura said 'It was the best effects he had seen in 60 years'."
-Ralph Moss, quoted in "Cover-Up Of Promising Cancer Treatment," Moconomy, June 11, 2023, retrieved Dec 24, 2024, [https://youtu.be/ee9KCGZvVfA?t=3917]

Sloan-Kettering fired Moss the following Monday, and the company had already sent a press release about his firing to every major newspaper to establish the narrative they wanted the public to believe:


"The assistant public affairs director of the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center has been discharged because he helped write a report charging that the center's research into the controversial cancer drug laetrile was incomplete and scientifically invalid.
The assistant director, Ralph W. Moss, was discharged Monday after he told another center official he was the co-author of the report for a group called Second Opinion, which consists of staff members of Sloan-Kettering who investigate problems at the institution. At a news conference last Friday; Mr. Moss appeared on behalf of the group and released the report, which alleges that a negative report on laetrile released by the center last June omitted some experiments that indicated the drug might be effective in treating cancer."
-Sheila Rule, "Cancer Aide Out in Laetrile Dispute," New York Times, Nov 24, 1977, p. 35, retrieved Dec 24, 2024, [https://www.nytimes.com/1977/11/24/archives/cancer-aide-out-in-laetrile-dispute.html]

Moss never claimed they omitted the experiments. They LIED about the experiment results, which is a key distinction because if anyone asked which experiments were "omitted," Sloan-Kettering could honestly say that none were, thereby misleading the public.

Moss was involved in passing information to a newsletter called "Second Opinion," which was a publication that had its articles written by Sloan-Kettering insiders under pseudonyms to protect their identities so they would not lose their jobs. The only person whose real name was attached to the publication was a scientist named Alec Pruchnicki, who was not connected to Sloan-Kettering, making Moss the first person connected to that publication to come forward and give it validity.

Once Moss told the truth, there was no going back because his connection to that publication ensured that he would never work any meaningful job in the medical field ever again. This spurred Moss to travel the world to help with cancer research, and today, he has roughly 15 books published on similar topics. Moss was also featured in the documentary "Second Opinion: The Lie of America's War on Cancer," which I would recommend to anyone who wants to hear more details about Moss's experience fighting for the truth about laetrile.
(See Kurio, "Second Opinion: The Lie of America's War on Cancer," Kurio - The Documentary Channel, Aug 14, 2022, [https://youtu.be/STc1ROk4JLA])



 

Shocking words came out of the mouth of Harold Varmus, Obama-appointed Director of the National Cancer Institute (NCI) from 2010 to 2015:
"You can't do experiments to see what causes cancer—it's not an accessible problem, and not the sort of thing scientists can afford to do."
-Harold E. Varmus, quoted by Logan Christopher, Medical Monopoly Musings, 2020, p. 65, ASIN: B08RPBY843

If that statement is true, what has been the purpose of cancer charities over the past century? Billions have been invested in this issue, yet we are no better off than a century ago, as cancer remains a greater problem now than it was then. I will soon explain why "affordability" is a major problem for them, but it has nothing to do with science, and everything to do with "profitability."

This will be a sensitive chapter for those who have been involved in volunteer efforts for cancer charities, or for those of you who have donated to them. Please keep in mind that there are many well-intentioned volunteers who have worked in low-level positions in organizations such as the American Cancer Society (ACS), who honestly believe they are doing the right thing, but if they will consider it for a moment, they have no idea where the money changes hands, they have no idea where funding is actually going (because even if they are told, they cannot know for sure), nor do they typically know the charity's financial ties to major corporate cartels who run the pharmaceutical industry.

There is a way which seemeth right unto a man,
but the end thereof are the ways of death.
-Proverbs 14:12

To understand this, let's take a closer look at the American Cancer Society, which professes to help with the prevention of cancer:
"[T]he American Cancer Society's Cancer Prevention & Early Detection Cancer Facts and Figures is a resource to strengthen cancer prevention and early detection efforts at the local, state, and national levels."
-American Cancer Society, "Cancer Prevention & Early Detection Facts & Figures," 2015, retrieved Dec 4, 2024, [https://web.archive.org/web/20151108040813/cancer.org/research/cancerfactsstatistics/cancer-prevention-early-detection]

Although many who have volunteered their time and money to the ACS believe this to be true, it is nothing more than propaganda. The ACS knows that because most of the public assumes this statement to be true, the public will continue to support them with volunteer work and donations.

I am not suggesting that the American Cancer Society began as an evil organization intent on deceiving the public because most charities are typically founded by a small group of compassionate individuals trying to aid the poor and needy. However, in nearly all cases, as these organizations grow in size and funding over the years, they are corrupted by greedy men. The ACS was established by 15 physicians in 1913, presumably with good intentions, but wealthy businessmen incorporated it in 1922, and soon after, John Rockefeller moved in to seize control once it had gained positive public recognition.

In this author's opinion, the ACS today is nothing more than a front group for Big Pharma. The ACS uses its false narrative of "charity" to "fight cancer" as a cover, so they can employ PR (public relations) tactics to divert negative attention away from the hazardous activities of pharmaceutical companies.

Samuel Epstein (1926-2018) was a physician and professor in the School of Public Health at the University of Illinois in Chicago. He authored a book in which he reported his findings on the ACS's lack of effort to prevent cancer by ignoring and avoiding opportunities to make factual statements about the damage caused by chemicals that induce cancer:
"Indeed, despite promises to the public to do everything to 'wipe out cancer in your lifetime,' the ACS fails to make its voice heard in Congress and the regulatory arena. Instead, the ACS has consistently rejected or ignored opportunities and requests from Congress, regulatory agencies, unions, and environmental and consumer organizations to provide scientific evidence critical to legislate occupational, environmental, and personal product carcinogens."
-Samuel S. Epstein, National Cancer Institute and American Cancer Society: Criminal Indifference to Cancer Prevention and Conflicts of Interest, Xlibris Corporation, 2011, p. 105, ISBN: 9781462861361

A carcinogen is any chemical or biological agent that can cause cancer, or increase the risk of it, which means the ACS has gone out of its way to avoid condemning many cancer-inducing chemicals that might be a detriment to the income of the pharmaceutical industry. The real track record for the ACS has been one of almost complete indifference to the public use of cancer-inducing substances:
"In 1971, when studies unequivocally proved that diethylstilbestrol (DES) caused vaginal cancers in teenaged daughters of women administered the drug during pregnancy, the ACS refused an invitation to testify at Congressional hearings to require the FDA (U. S. Food and Drug Administration) to ban its use as an animal feed additive. It gave no reason for its refusal."
-Samuel S. Epstein, M.D., "The American Cancer Society: Why Prevent Cancer If We're Making Money On It?" Cancer Prevention Coalition, retrieved Dec 24, 2024, [https://web.archive.org/web/20120109035725/preventcancer.com/losing/acs/acs_why_prevent.htm]

Some readers may condemn me as a fanatic for suggesting that the American Cancer Society WANTS people to get cancer, but let's briefly examine this idea. What is the ACS's purpose? Does it not rely on grants and donations fueled by the ongoing cancer epidemic? If the public widely embraced B17 alongside a metabolic diet, and cancer ceased to be an epidemic, what would become of the ACS? Consider that there is no American Scurvy Society in existence. Every business owner understands that without demand for their goods or services, their business will cease to exist, and similarly, the ACS recognizes that if cancer were no longer a major problem, their services would no longer be needed, their funding would dry up, and their company would vanish.

"In 1977 and 1978, the ACS opposed regulations proposed for hair coloring products that contained dyes known to cause breast and liver cancer in rodents. In so doing, the ACS ignored virtually every tenet of responsible public health as these chemicals were clear-cut liver and breast carcinogens."
-Samuel S. Epstein, M.D., "The American Cancer Society: Why Prevent Cancer If We're Making Money On It?" Cancer Prevention Coalition, retrieved Dec 24, 2024, [https://web.archive.org/web/20120109035725/preventcancer.com/losing/acs/acs_why_prevent.htm]

Imagine a new, inexpensive chemical for building cheap roads was put on the market, but later, it was found to release a harmful substance into the air when it rains, sickening drivers and destroying crops. Scientists conducted studies, confirming the chemical as the cause, and reports were submitted and reviewed. A politician, given the chance to vote on a bill to ban this chemical's use in road construction, voted 'No'—what conclusions could you draw from this?

There are many things we could surmise, but one general principle that we know for certain is that this politician's vote was NOT in the best interest of the public he is supposed to be serving. So what other interest could he have? What is his motivation? What is it that the politician values MORE than public health?

Now suppose an investigation uncovered that the politician's wife owned substantial stock in the company producing this chemical. Would you not call that a conflict of interest? This is a clear example of "the fox guarding the hen house." Now consider this: When has the American Cancer Society ever faced a thorough audit and investigation by an independent third party for conflicts of interest or potential criminal activity?

The ACS operates as a disease-mongering institution, profiting from perpetual illness. They thrive on selling hope while concealing or dismissing genuine cures and steering people away from prevention methods that threaten their corporate sponsors' profits, keeping the ignorant public hoping for a better future they will never attain because that future would spell the end of the ACS.

The American Cancer Society is the real cancer.

"As the American Cancer Society's wealth grows, its spending on prevention research remains at lowest priority. Responding to a 1999 article in Sierra, the magazine of the Sierra Club, which charged the ACS with indifference to prevention, Dr. Harmon Eyre, executive vice president for research and medical affairs for the Society, released details of its allocations for research on environmental carcinogenesis. Yet while Eyre claims cancer cause and prevention are a high priority and receive generous funding from the ACS, his documentation says the contrary. Eyre's figures indicate the Society spent $2.6 million in 1998 on nineteen large research grants on environmental carcinogenesis, but only three grants could reasonably qualify as environmental cancer research. And although the Society claims it allocated $100 million of its $677 million budget to support cancer research in 1998, analysis reveals that actual expenditures on environmental carcinogenesis totaled less than $500,000, well under one-hundredth of one percent of the Society's total annual budget."
-Samuel S. Epstein, M.D., "The American Cancer Society: Why Prevent Cancer If We're Making Money On It?" Cancer Prevention Coalition, retrieved Dec 24, 2024, [https://web.archive.org/web/20120109035725/preventcancer.com/losing/acs/acs_why_prevent.htm]

Harmon Eyre first volunteered to work with the ACS in 1988, became their Chief Medical Officer in 1993, and retired from the organization in 2007. He also co-authored a book called The American Cancer Society: A History of Saving Lives, which had its foreword written by former President George H.W. Bush, and I point this out so that readers will understand that Harmon is a staunch believer in the mission of the ACS (assuming all this was not done for show), despite the fact that his report of the ACS's funding allocation numbers was not just embarrassing, but downright criminal.
(See American Cancer Society, "American Cancer Society Names New Chief Medical Officer," July 23, 2007, retrieved Dec 26, 2024, [https://pressroom.cancer.org/releases?item=49]; See also Irvin D. Fleming & Harmon J. Eyre, The American Cancer Society: A History of Saving Lives, American Cancer Society, 2010, ISBN: 9780944235911)

In other words, the ACS claimed to dedicate only 14% of its budget to research for cancer prevention and cures, despite stating cancer prevention as its primary goal. If polled, the public would likely assume this figure is, or should be, much higher. Yet, in 1998, their Chief Medical Officer reported that just half a million dollars—merely 0.07% of their total budget—was allocated to researching "environmental carcinogenesis," revealing their clear lack of concern for investigating the cancerous potential in chemicals produced by Big Pharma.

I want Americans to realize that the ACS, along with the NCI (National Cancer Institute), has consistently treated cancer prevention as a very low priority. This is crucial to understand because, as I have demonstrated, cancer stems from vitamin and mineral deficiency, meaning there will never be a "cure" for cancer since it hinges entirely on nutritional prevention. Therefore, knowing that cancer charities rely on cancer's prevalence in society to sustain their funding, and knowing that the "cure" is based on deficiency and prevention, it should be clear why the ACS and NCI put low emphasis on deficiency and prevention, while telling the public the opposite.

Epstein aptly stated:
"The ACS and NCI have long continued to devote virtually exclusive priority to research on diagnosis and treatment of cancer, with indifference to prevention, other than faulty personal lifestyle, commonly known as 'blame the victim,' to the exclusion of a very wide range of then well-documented avoidable causes of cancer. The longstanding exclusionary emphasis of the ACS, and to a lesser extent the NCI, on the 'blame the victim' cause of cancer was based on the claims of Sir Richard Doll, a closet industry consultant. The NCI's current budget of about $6 billion until very recently remains largely directed to these very limited objectives. Not surprisingly, the incidence of cancer over past decades has escalated, approximately parallel to its increased funding."
-Samuel S. Epstein, "American Cancer Society: More Interested In Accumulating Wealth Than Saving Lives," p. 5, retrieved Dec 26, 2024, [https://naturalsociety.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/american-cancer-society-doc.pdf]

When Epstein condemned these organizations for their "blame the victim" mentality, please do not misunderstand his meaning because he is not saying that personal responsibility is not a huge contributing factor to cancer. Obviously, individual responsibility is imperative to fighting any disease. The context of this quote is that the chemical industry is producing carcinogens without proper regulation, and these organizations are doing almost NOTHING to stop the influx of cancer through contact with chemicals, blaming the public instead of themselves and their industry, because the men and women on the boards of these institutions have financial ties to chemical companies.

The problems with these organizations ramped up when President Nixon declared a "War on Cancer" in 1971, which was just another excuse to spend federal taxpayer money on things that would make him look good in the public eye. We should almost always oppose those who declare a "war" on anything, most especially when the terms of victory are never specified. The "War on Poverty" only increased taxes and poverty. The "War on Drugs" only increased taxes and drug use. The "War on Cancer" has only increased taxes and made the cancer epidemic worse because it is never about "defeating" anything upon which "war" was declared—it is ALWAYS about stealing more money from the public, so federal goons can money-launder it to their pals.

"In 1992, the American Cancer Society Foundation was created to allow the ACS to solicit contributions of more than $100,000. A close look at the heavy-hitters on the Foundation's board made it clear what conflicts of interests were at play, and from where the Foundation expected its big contributions. The Foundation's board of trustees included corporate executives from the pharmaceutical, investment, banking, and media industries."
-Samuel S. Epstein, "American Cancer Society: More Interested In Accumulating Wealth Than Saving Lives," p. 6, retrieved Dec 26, 2024, [https://naturalsociety.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/american-cancer-society-doc.pdf]

Prior to 1992, the ACS could only collect donations in small amounts, which made it much more difficult for them to legally accept large contributions from big corporations. Once the Foundation was open for business, contributions came from many big donors of conflicting interests who influenced their decisions, some of whom include the following:

David Bethune, President of pharmaceutical giant Lederle Laboratories, a division of American Cyanamid Company, which made chemical herbicides, fertilizers, and introduced its own anti-cancer drug. Gordon Binder, CEO of biotech company Amgen, producer of chemicals administered to chemotherapy patients. Diane Miller, daughter of Walt Disney, and wife of the former President of the Walt Disney Company George Dessart, CEO of CBS (Columbia Broadcasting System), and ACS board chairman Alan Gevertzen, former chairman of Boeing Sumner Redstone, former chairman of Viacom International

Why does this matter? Because insiders are funding other insiders, to gain more power and influence, and where the money goes, greed and corruption follow:
"A 1992 article in the Wall Street Journal, by Thomas DiLorenzo, professor of economics at Loyola College and veteran investigator of nonprofit organizations, revealed that the Texas affiliate of the ACS owned more than $11 million of assets in land and real estate, more than 56 vehicles, including 11 Ford Crown Victorias for senior executives, and 45 other cars assigned to staff members. ACS chapters in Arizona, California, and Missouri spent only 10 percent of their funds on direct community services. Thus for every $1 spent on direct services, approximately $6.40 was spent on compensation and overhead. In all ten states, salaries and fringe benefits were by far the largest single budget items, a surprising fact in light of the characterization of the appeals, which stressed an urgent and critical need for donations to provide cancer services. In 1993, The Chronicle of Philanthropy published a statement that the ACS was 'more interested in accumulating wealth than in saving lives.' Fund-raising appeals routinely stated that the ACS needed more funds to support its cancer programs, all the while holding more than $750 million in cash and real estate assets."
-Samuel S. Epstein, "American Cancer Society: More Interested In Accumulating Wealth Than Saving Lives," p. 7, retrieved Dec 26, 2024, [https://naturalsociety.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/american-cancer-society-doc.pdf]

The vast majority of all funding to the American Cancer Society, and other similar international charities, pays for the luxurious lifestyle of its executive employees. If that was not bad enough, these corporate fat cats (living the high life on "charity") have convinced millions of women that it is in the best interest of their health to take their clothes off so medical "professionals" can feel them up and take pictures of their boobs.

I understand that was a bit of a juxtaposition, but I say this bluntly because I want females to understand that, once you understand the natural remedy for cancer, not only are these exams unnecessary, but they are a huge money-maker for Big Pharma. The ACS created National Breast Cancer Awareness Month with special funding from Zeneca Pharmaceuticals, who merged with Astra in 1998 to form the global pharmaceutical giant AstraZeneca:
"Conspicuously absent from the widely promoted National Breast Cancer Awareness Month is any information on environmental and other avoidable causes of breast cancer. This is no accident. Zeneca Pharmaceuticals—a spin-off of Imperial Chemical Industries is one of the world's largest manufacturers of chlorinated and other industrial chemicals, including those incriminated as causes of breast cancer. Zeneca has also been the sole multimillion-dollar funder of the National Breast Cancer Awareness Month since its inception in 1984, besides the sole manufacturer of Tamoxifen, the world's top-selling anticancer and breast cancer "prevention" drug, with $400 million in annual sales. Furthermore, Zeneca recently assumed direct management of 11 cancer centers in U.S. hospitals. Zeneca owns a 50 percent stake in these centers known collectively as Salick Health Care."
-Samuel S. Epstein, "American Cancer Society: More Interested In Accumulating Wealth Than Saving Lives," p. 11, retrieved Dec 26, 2024, [https://naturalsociety.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/american-cancer-society-doc.pdf]

Big Pharma and the Medical Mafia put emphasis on different "types" of cancer depending on the location and size. However, a metabolic diet change with B17 will heal breast cancer in women the same as it will heal prostate cancer in men, so long as they avoid the use of harmful chemicals in their daily lives.

Brainwashed women rally around National Breast Cancer Awareness Month (NBCAM) with their sentimental pink ribbons, pinning them to their blouses as if, by upholding this idol of their perceived righteousness, it grants magical power to cure cancer. These women are blissfully unaware that the very people profiting from cancer-inducing products are the same ones rallying these women together so they can profit from the medication for the disease they caused in the first place.

All NBCAM press releases, pamphlets, posters, and commercials are produced through funding by Zeneca (or today, AstraZeneca). Thus, Zeneca controls the media narrative around the pink ribbon army, manipulating women like mice, feeding them harmful substances, then watching them run in circles trying to fix a never-ending problem because they are willingly blind to the cause.

Over the past few decades, the ACS has been hypocritically rebuked by Congress for not doing enough. This is typically because scientific studies and bills that demand the removal of chemicals—cleaning air and water to prevent cancer—have rarely seen endorsement by the ACS, despite their claim to promote prevention of cancer, and by attacking Congress, they can shift blame away from their so-called "charity."

As we learned earlier, Diethylstilbestrol (DES) was prescribed to young women to prevent miscarriage and pregnancy complications, but was proven to cause vaginal cancer. Strangely enough, it was also being used as an animal feed additive, which caused other countries to ban import of U.S. meat, so Congress had a hearing to require the FDA to ban the drug's use, but as you might recall, the ACS declined the invitation to testify at the hearing, and gave no reason for their refusal to speak on the matter.
(See National Cancer Institute, "Diethylstilbestrol (DES) Exposure and Cancer," retrieved Dec 27, 2024, [https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/hormones/des-fact-sheet])

After a prolonged struggle against Big Pharma lobbyists, federal mandates declared DES dangerous, yet the AstraZeneca-funded NBCAM website (breastcancer.org) buried the warning about it in the lower half of its "Known breast cancer risk factors" list. The NBCAM site offers few details and downplays the danger, stating that DES "may have slightly higher risk of breast cancer." Instead of putting the real dangers front and center, it prioritizes genetics as the top risk factor for breast cancer, akin to the naive belief that scurvy haunted the hulls of ships, listing primary causes as sex, age, family history, ethnicity, pregnancy, breastfeeding, menstruation, alcohol, and even firm breasts. (I kid you not, that last one is on the list.)
-BreastCancer.org, "Breast Cancer Risk Factors," retrieved Dec 31, 2024, [https://www.breastcancer.org/risk/risk-factors]

Comically, they list "Radiation to Chest or Face Before Age 30" as a factor that puts a person at "higher-than-average risk of breast cancer." Their linked details state that chest radiation treatment increases cancer risk, yet they fail to mention chest x-rays, which also involve radiation exposure.

I urge readers to avoid x-rays at all costs. Never get an x-ray unless you believe it is a dire emergency, and no other option is available.

The NBCAM and ACS heavily promote regular mammography screening, in which women are expected to set an appointment every six months to go into a doctor's office, expose their breasts, and put them into a machine that squeezes them painfully to take x-rays, which is radiation of the chest, the very thing that the NBCAM website said puts women at high risk for cancer. To clarify, that means studies should be done into women being MORE at risk for breast cancer by participating in early breast cancer detection, and the few studies that have been done so far indicate that early screening does not do much, if anything, to reduce mortality rates of cancer:
"The long-standing claims that routine mammography screening allows early detection and treatment of breast cancer, thereby reducing mortality, are, at best, highly questionable. In fact, the overwhelming majority of breast cancers are unaffected by early detection, either because they are aggressive or slow growing. There is also supportive evidence that the major variable predicting survival is 'biological determinism—a combination of virulence of an individual tumor together with the host's immune response,' rather than just early detection. Claims for the benefit of screening mammography in reducing breast cancer mortality have been based on eight international controlled trials involving about five hundred thousand women. However, specialized or meta-analysis of these trials revealed that only two, based on sixty-six thousand postmenopausal women, were adequately randomized to allow statistically valid conclusions. Based on these trials, it was concluded that 'there is no reliable evidence that screening decreases breast cancer mortality—not even a tendency towards an effect.' Accordingly, the authors concluded that there is no longer any justification for screening mammography. Further evidence was detailed at the May 6, 2001, annual meeting of the National Breast Cancer Coalition in Washington, DC, and published in the July 2001 report of the Nordic Cochrane Centre."
-Samuel S. Epstein, Stop Breast Cancer Before It Starts, Seven Stories Press, 2013, p. 52, ISBN: 9781609804886

Mammograms are MammoSCAMS.

However, medical institutions cannot allow mammography to fade away because it is FAR too profitable for them. In 2024, without insurance, a mammogram cost around 200-300 dollars, and federal funding spent on providing mammograms was close to $8 billion. This is a multi-billion dollar market for the medical industry, and it is easy to sell because all they need to do is strike fear into the hearts of women by telling them that they must spend money on these screenings or suffer the fate of having their breasts cut off.
(See Anna Vlahiotis & Brian Griffin, "Analysis of utilization patterns and associated costs of the breast imaging and diagnostic procedures after screening mammography," National Library of Medicine, PMID: 29618934, DOI: 10.2147/CEOR.S150260, retrieved Dec 31, 2024, [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5875586/])

In 1977, hair dye chemicals were exempt from regulation under the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, but over the next few years, hundreds of complaints from scientists were pouring into the FDA. California House Representative John Moss had a Congressional hearing to revoke that exemption, but the ACS opposed legislative regulations on hair dyes.
(See Jane E. Brody, "Cancer Link to Hair Dye Feared," New York Times, Dec 15, 1977, retrieved Dec 27, 2024, [https://www.nytimes.com/1977/12/15/archives/new-jersey-pages-cancer-link-to-hair-dye-feared-cancerhair-dye-link.html])

In 1982, the ACS took an extreme stance against making any kind of endorsement to ban cancer-causing chemicals:
"The ACS adopted a highly restrictive cancer policy that insisted on unequivocal human evidence of carcinogenicity before taking any position on public health hazards. Accordingly, the ACS still trivializes or rejects evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals, and has actively campaigned against laws (the 1958 Delaney Law, for instance) that ban deliberate addition to food of any amount of any additive shown to cause cancer in either animals or humans. The ACS still persists in an anti-Delaney policy, in spite of the overwhelming support for this Law by the independent scientific community."
-Samuel S. Epstein, "American Cancer Society: More Interested In Accumulating Wealth Than Saving Lives," p. 19, retrieved Dec 26, 2024, [https://naturalsociety.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/american-cancer-society-doc.pdf]

A decade later, the ACS, still trying to avoid government regulation of carcinogens in hair dyes, published a misleading report:
"The ACS published a study designed to reassure women on the safety of dark permanent hair dyes and trivialize risks of fatal and nonfatal cancers, as documented in over six prior reports. However, the ACS study was based on a group of some 1,100 women with an initial age of fifty-six who were followed for seven years only. The ACS concluded that 'women using permanent hair dyes are not generally at increased risk of fatal cancer.' However, risks of cancer in women over sixty-three are up to twenty times higher for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and multiple myeloma, thirty-four times for bladder cancer, and eight times for breast cancer. As designed, the ACS study would have missed the great majority of these cancers, and excluded dark hair dyes as important risks of avoidable cancers."
-Samuel S. Epstein, Stop Breast Cancer Before It Starts, Seven Stories Press, 2013, p. 196, ISBN: 9781609804886

It is amazing to me that when laetrile demonstrated cancer-healing effects in mice, Sloan-Kettering dismissed it, denied it, and claimed the positive results were disproven through flawed studies. Similarly, when chemicals were shown to induce cancer in mice, the ACS ignored it, denied it, and claimed the harmful effects were disproven with faulty studies.

It appears that most individuals tied to Big Pharma and the chemical industry simply dismiss and deny the truth to safeguard their financial interests. Most fascinating, however, is that the public largely overlooks and denies the daily deception by these institutions, choosing instead to glorify and defend them against anyone who dares criticize them.

For instance, atrazine, used for decades in herbicides, is a known carcinogen detected in surface waters in the U.S. and Europe due to its aquatic stability. Applied to crops, it seeps into the soil and, because of its resistance to being washed away, persists in the environment, where it is absorbed by plants, animals, and ultimately, people.

"A series of studies exploring the occupational risks of breast cancer were launched in 1995 by James Brophy, Margaret Keith, and a multi-disciplinary team of co-investigators in partnership with the regional cancer centre in Windsor, Ontario, Canada. The work histories for 299 cases of breast cancer were compared to those of another 237 women who had been diagnosed with cancers other than breast or ovarian. The findings, while not statistically strong, revealed a ninefold increase in risk for breast cancer among women who had farmed, particularly among those younger than fifty-five."
-Samuel S. Epstein, Stop Breast Cancer Before It Starts, Seven Stories Press, 2013, p. 14, ISBN: 9781609804886

This subject needs a lot more study, to say the least. Certainly, funding from the ACS should be heavily allocated to it, but they will never do that because it hurts their financial interests.

Studies have revealed a significant increase in breast and ovarian cancers among female farmers exposed to herbicides like atrazine and other estrogen-based cattle feeds. Worse still, Syngenta, the manufacturer of atrazine, was acquired in 2000 by Zeneca, or as we learned earlier, AstraZeneca, which owns NBCAM and produces the harmful drug tamoxifen, the world's leading breast cancer "prevention" drug.

In other words, AstraZeneca produces atrazine, which causes breast cancer, and then produces tamoxifen, which allegedly prevents breast cancer. They market the problem to sell the solution. In 2017, AstraZeneca sold Syngenta to ChemChina, turning Syngenta into a Chinese state-controlled entity that, as of 2025, has spent nearly a decade selling toxic herbicides to American farmers.

To this day, the American Cancer Society has made no public statements condemning atrazine as a carcinogen.

Mainstream cancer charities like the ACS are smokescreens used to hoodwink the public. Big Pharma aligns with these charities to create the illusion of caring about your health, while actively maximizing profits on substances they know full well are harmful to your well-being.

For example, in the mid-90s, a Swedish study showed a link between tamoxifen and uterine tumors in women, and Zeneca sent out hundreds of thousands of letters to physicians to do damage control for their product:
"When the news came out that breast cancer patients who took tamoxifen for five years or longer (the same regimen that seems to prevent recurrence) might have tripled their risk of uterine cancer, British cancer researcher Richard Peto, head of the cancer research unit at Oxford University, sought to dismiss it. If caught early, he said, endometrial cancer seldom kills, so 'it's no big deal'. That statement infuriated critics who noted that the treatment for uterine cancer is hysterectomy. [i.e. surgical removal of the womb] Dr. Adriane Fugh-Berman, a leading women's health activist, angrily responded: 'To some of us, it is a big deal to lose your uterus.'"
-Sherrill Sellman, "Tamoxifen: A Major Medical Mistake?" quoted from Nexus Magazine, Vol. 5, No. 4, 1998, retrieved Jan 1, 2025, [https://oawhealth.com/article/tamoxifen-a-major-medical-mistake/]

Please do not think that every physician cares so little for the well being of others. I would guess that the majority probably do care, even if they are brainwashed into pharmaceutical ideology from their education. However, there are still a substantial number of physicians out there who have no concern about the lives of those around them because they chose the career for money and respect, so all of us need to practice discernment and make wise decisions, rather than blindly trust someone who has the title "doctor" in front of his/her name, whether it be in medicine, science, politics, economics, philosophy, or religion.

But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.
-Hebrews 5:14

The ACS claims to follow the guidelines of the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), but this is a cop-out because the EPA is just as corrupt as the ACS, and is also completely controlled by Big Pharma lobbyists. One of the more recent examples of this was former EPA administrator Scott Pruitt, who took bribes from lobbyists, and wasted taxpayer money on luxurious amenities, over-the-top security, and millions of dollars in travel expenses.

American Oversight, a U.S. watchdog organization, spoke of legal action against Pruitt:
"The level of secrecy at the EPA has also been unprecedented, and Pruitt took several steps to increase security at the agency and suppress information that the public has a right to know. American Oversight is currently suing the EPA to fight back against the agency's pattern of wrongly rejecting FOIA requests as not 'reasonably described.' Former Administrator Pruitt took every opportunity he could to use his position to his advantage and keep the public in the dark—including maintaining secret calendars. Even though Pruitt resigned in light of these scandals, our investigation into the EPA have [sic] continued."
-American Oversight, "Scott Pruitt's Mismanagement of the EPA," July 24, 2020, retrieved Dec 31, 2024, [https://americanoversight.org/investigation/investigating-the-epa-administrator-scott-pruitt/]

As far as I know, Pruitt has never faced criminal charges, instead becoming a lobbyist in my home state of Indiana (which infuriates me to no end) and running for U.S. Senate in Oklahoma in 2022, where he fortunately lost the primary with a mere 5% of the vote. These opportunists always seek to reclaim high government positions to exploit the public for money and influence. The EPA, like the NCI and ACS, is no different—bought-and-paid-for institutions controlled by those with vested interests in maintaining legal and tax-funded support for their toxic products, without which their profits would plummet.
(See Emily Hopkins, "Scott Pruitt left the EPA mired in scandal. Now he is lobbying Indiana lawmakers," Apr 18, 2019, retrieved Dec 31, 2024, [https://www.indystar.com/story/news/environment/2019/04/18/scott-pruitt-now-lobbyist-indiana-legislature/3511759002/])

The ACS wields influence, and the EPA holds perceived public authority, enabling them to collaborate in deceiving Americans into believing whatever they want us to believe. This deception extends beyond hiding the dangers of harmful chemicals to concealing alternative, non-pharmaceutical cancer treatments not controlled by the medical mafia (i.e., the AMA), such as laetrile/amygdalin/B17.

PBS Frontline released a documentary in March of 1993 on the use of pesticides in children's food causing cancer in a number of cases, for which they won outstanding journalism awards, but the ACS, just before the release of this documentary, sided with the pesticide companies:
"In 1993, just before PBS Frontline aired the special entitled 'In Our Children's Food,' the ACS came out in support of the pesticide industry. In a damage-control memorandum sent to some 48 regional divisions, the ACS trivialized pesticides as a cause of childhood cancer, and reassured the public that carcinogenic pesticide residues in food are safe, even for babies. When the media and concerned citizens called local ACS chapters, they received reassurances from an ACS memorandum by its vice president for Public Relations: 'The primary health hazards of pesticides are from direct contact with the chemicals at potentially high doses, for example, farm workers who apply the chemicals and work in the fields after the pesticides have been applied, and people living near aerially sprayed fields... The American Cancer Society believes that the benefits of a balanced diet rich in fruits and vegetables far outweigh the largely theoretical risks posed by occasional, very low pesticide residue levels in foods.'"
-Samuel S. Epstein, M.D., "The American Cancer Society: Why Prevent Cancer If We're Making Money On It?" Cancer Prevention Coalition, retrieved Dec 24, 2024, [https://web.archive.org/web/20120109035725/preventcancer.com/losing/acs/acs_why_prevent.htm]; See also PBS, "In Our Children's Food," Frank K, Dec 13, 2013, retrieved Jan 1, 2025, [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXlIMmJg05A]

Despite the attempts by the ACS to quell public outrage, the National Resource Defense Council took action and got results a few years later:
"The National Academies report on pesticides and children's health, along with intense pressure from NRDC and others, led Congress to unanimously pass the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) in 1996, requiring EPA to consider harm to children when registering pesticides, and to consider risks to groups of related pesticides and not just evaluate them one-by-one. Subsequent negotiations with NRDC forced EPA to review pesticide registrations every 15 years to incorporate new science. Together, these two requirements have forced millions of pounds of the most toxic pesticides off the market and out of our homes, gardens, and food crops."
-National Resource Defense Council, "Pesticides: What You Need to Know," March, 2015, retrieved July 24, 2025, [https://web.archive.org/web/20150327030524/nrdc.org/health/pesticides]

This, of course, does not fully resolve the issue, as industry titans have numerous ways to circumvent such measures. The true solution lies in enacting laws that prohibit any governing body from accepting corporate lobbying and establishing legislation to ensure civil lawsuits by private citizens against chemical and food industries are funded by federal resources (i.e. through tariffs, not taxation), rallying attorneys by financially motivating them to uncover illicit industry practices and file lawsuits on behalf of the American public.

The ACS has had countless opportunities to help prevent carcinogens from being sold to the public, but time and time again, they refuse to act, and even worse, they attempt to justify the chemicals. We read this in chapter four, but let's look at it one more time:
"The American Medical Association has strong ties to pharmaceutical companies, and the American Cancer Society owns half of the patent rights of chemotherapy drugs."
-Zillah R. Eisenstein, Manmade Breast Cancers, Cornell University Press, 2001, p. 101, ISBN: 9780801487071; Eisenstein is a professor and Chair of Politics at Ithaca College in New York.

I could not find a single non-patented substance or therapy approved by the FDA for treating cancer. Everything they approve has a corporate patent on it. That should tell you everything you need to know about why the FDA exists, namely, to protect the financial interests of Big Pharma.

This is why the ACS does so little when it comes to protecting the public, as was stated in a 1994 Center for Science in the Public Interest press release:
"A group of 24 scientists charged that ACS was doing little to protect the public from cancer-causing chemicals in the environment and workplace. The scientists urged ACS to revamp its policies and to emphasize prevention in its lobbying and educational campaigns."
-Center for Science in the Public Interest, Jan 23, 1994, New York City, quoted by Samuel S. Epstein, Cancer-Gate: How to Win the Losing Cancer War, Baywood Publishing Company Inc., 2005, p. 84, ISBN: 9780895033543

They "urged," or rather, begged the ACS to do something because the federal government has no power over them. Our federal government is controlled by the same people who control the ACS, so all our spineless representatives can do is plead and whine, "Oh please ACS, won't you do something for the American people who donate to you?" Until the American people wake up to the source of the problem, and stop giving their money to the very people who poison them and their children, this will continue endlessly.

To believe that poison through chemo-"therapy" and radiation will heal us is absurd, and I am a bit impressed given the remarkable success of their disinformation campaigns. The ACS cannot criticize these poisons because their board members' patents are tied to them, despite the absence of any real medical science proving their effectiveness in treating cancer:
"Success of most chemotherapies is appalling... There is no scientific evidence for its ability to extend in any appreciable way the lives of patients suffering from the most common organic cancer... Chemotherapy for malignancies too advanced for surgery, which accounts for 80% of all cancers, is a scientific wasteland."
-Abel Ulrich,, "Chemotherapy of Advanced Epithelial Cancer," Hippocrates Verlag GmbH, Stuttgart, 1990, quoted by Don Benjamin, "Submission to Inquiry Into Services and Treatment Options for Persons With Cancer," Cancer Information & Support Society, Australian Senate, March 2005, retrieved Jan 1, 2025, [https://web.archive.org/web/20190528112432/aph.gov.au/~/media/wopapub/senate/committee/clac_ctte/completed_
inquiries/2004_07/cancer/submissions/sub15_pdf.ashx]

Famous actor and producer Michael Landon, most well known for his TV shows Little House on the Prairie and Highway to Heaven, died from prostate cancer in 1991. Note that Landon was not a Christian in any sense, but rather, he was a new-age mystic, and I have an article exposing his beliefs called "Wolves in Costume: Michael Landon" at creationliberty.com if any readers want more details. Landon amassed great wealth after years of producing successful TV shows, which means he could afford the top medical professionals available to help him, and they all recommended chemo, as his daughter tells us in her book:
"'That's the only hope they see,' wrote Dad. But he also knew that chemotherapy's rate of success was 'really zero. Less than one percent of the patients treated are alive at the end of five years. And,' continued Dad, 'I'm not sure in these cases what alive means.' Dad was well aware of the horrendous effects that huge doses of chemotherapy had on the body: the sores in the mouth, the peeling skin, the hair falling out and the gradual breakdown of major organs... 'You can die of the cure before you die of the disease,' he commented."
-Cheryl Landon Wilson, I Promised My Dad: An Intimate Portrait of Michael Landon by His Eldest Daughter, Simon & Schuster, 1992, p. 185-186, ISBN: 0671793527

Landon spoke the truth when he said their "cure" kills faster than cancer itself, yet it is endorsed by the ACS, NCI, FDA, AMA, and numerous other organizations. Meanwhile, the chemo-quacks within these institutions hypocritically denounce natural health therapies as "quackery."

I find this hilarious because Ralph Moss, the aforementioned former PR writer for Sloan-Kettering, revealed that one of his bosses at the time, Lloyd Old, aforementioned Sloan-Kettering vice president, admitted that all the ideas for their experiments originated from what they labeled as quackery:
"He [Old] did something and said something that I will never forget. He got up from his chair—when I said all these things—he got up from his chair, and he said to me, 'Do you want to know where we get all of our new ideas?' You have to understand, here is the Vice President of the Sloan-Kettering Institute talking to a fledgling science writer. 'Well, of course.' And he kind of tip-toed behind me, behind the couch, and went over to his bookshelf, and took down a book, and came back, and he said, 'Here. This is the bible." And I took a look at this. It was the American Cancer Society's book, Unproven Methods of Cancer Management. I had this book. It was the quack list. We were supposed to refer to this book so we would know what was quackery and what was authentic science. I mean, this was the most—scientifically speaking—the most mind-blowing moment of my life because here's the Vice President of Sloan-Kettering telling me that the basic source of new ideas within orthodox science came from what is regarded generally as quackery."
-Ralph Moss, quoted by Eric Merola, "Cover-Up Of Promising Cancer Treatment," Moconomy, June 11, 2023, retrieved Dec 18, 2024, [https://youtu.be/ee9KCGZvVfA?t=1691]

Ultimately, this indicates that the deciding factor between "authentic science" and "quackery" is the word of John Rockefeller. When you finally realize that the deceptions of Big Pharma, legacy media, and government institutions have completely controlled the medical narrative, it will make you rethink everything you have ever learned about health and medicine.

This also demonstrates that the ACS is just one link in the chain that binds the American people into a prison of the mind. This medical mafia prison is built to protect the hierarchy of their religion, to safeguard the medical clerics loyal to the corporate hivemind, and to ostracize anyone who has a free-thinking mind, who would innovate and create for the benefit of the poor and needy, so the mafia can maintain its ruling authority and income against those who would break the chains of the prisoners.

If you want to know what reality looks like when it comes to cancer charities, the following diagram should summarize everything we have learned in this book so far, and this is true for the vast majority of charities that exist today:


When people donate to the American Cancer Society, they expect their contributions to fund research for a "cure for cancer," but that is not the reality. As noted earlier, only a tiny fraction of those funds goes to research and development, and what little is allocated is invested in creating patentable drugs that supposedly alleviate cancer symptoms, enabling the pharmaceutical giants owning the laboratories to profit.

The public is giving money to Big Pharma for the privilege of paying Big Pharma to scam them.

I must confess that in order to get the full financial details about ACS transactions, it would require someone with much more accounting and research experience than me because it gets a bit complicated. The ACS hires what are known as "solicitors," which (in this context) means companies that get profit from the donations, making the ACS more of a channel through which money flows, rather than a recipient, and that creates roadblocks when analyzing the details about ACS transactions.

For example, the ACS enlisted InfoCision from 1999-2011:
"In fiscal 2010, InfoCision gathered $5.3 million for the society. Hundreds of thousands of volunteers took part, but none of that money—not one penny—went to fund cancer research or help patients, according to the society's filing with the U.S. Internal Revenue Service and the state of Maine."
-David M. Evans, "Charities Deceive Donors Unaware Money Goes to a Telemarketer," Bloomberg Business, Sept 12, 2014, retrieved Jan 2, 2025, [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-09-12/charities-deceive-donors-unaware-money-goes-to-a-telemarketer]

(Click for larger image.)

The above image is the activity report from the ACS, and their CFO (Chief Financial Officer) signed off on it. If you look closely, you will notice the amount InfoCision received was MORE than they raised in donations, and worse still is that the willingly ignorant public refuses to believe that anyone on the side of "cancer research" could possibly deceive them, which is why the ACS has never been brought up on criminal charges.

Not one dime was ever returned to those who donated.

As I said before, the vast majority of charities in general (no matter the focus of their organization) are scam organizations, in which very little of the amount they receive goes to the cause they claim to serve. The Tampa Bay Times and the Center for Investigative Reporting pulled the federal tax filings from the past ten years on many major charity funds, and came up with a list of the top ranking worst charities in America.

(MM = Millions -- The total percentage spent on aid is after the other expenses of the organization.)

NAME DONATIONS VIA SOLICITORS PAID TO SOLICITORS % SPEND ON AID Kids Wish Network $137.9 MM $115.9 MM 2.5% Cancer Fund of America $86.8 MM $75.4 MM 1.0% Breast Cancer Relief $63.9 MM $44.8 MM 2.2% Children's Cancer Fund of America $43.7 MM $34.4 MM 4.6% Children's Cancer Recovery Foundation $38.5 MM $28.9 MM 0.7% Woman to Woman Breast Cancer Foundation $19.4 MM $18.2 MM 0.3% National Cancer Coalition $42.1 MM $16.4 MM 1.3% United Breast Cancer Foundation $12.7 MM $7.2 MM 6.3% Children's Leukemia Research Association $9.8 MM $6.8 MM 11.1% Hope Cancer Fund $2.1 MM $1.7 MM 0.5%

-Tampa Bay Times, "America's Worst Charities," tampabay.com, December, 2014, retrieved July 24, 2025, [https://web.archive.org/web/20150321060833/tampabay.com/americas-worst-charities]

As you can see, based on their investigation, these charities typically spend less than 10% of what they receive on aid of any kind. Some of them were spent less than 1%, despite the fact that they received tens of millions of dollars in donations from the public, and once again, no federal or state prosecutions, and not a single dollar was returned to the donors.

Even CNN (one of the worst news companies in the world) reported on this travesty:
"The 50 worst charities in America devote less than 4% of donations raised to direct cash aid. Some charities gave even less. Over a decade, one diabetes charity raised nearly $14 million and gave about $10,000 to patients. Six spent no cash at all on their cause."
-Kris Hundley & Kendall Taggart, "Above The Law: America's Worst Charities," CNN, Jun 13, 2013, retrieved Mar 27, 2015, [cnn.com/2013/06/13/us/worst-charities/index.html?c=homepage-t]

During the 2020 election season in the United States, researchers were investigating former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden, who (as of 2020, when he ran for president, and later "won" via cheating, due to a massive influx of fake ballots) was being investigated for various criminal activities, and those researchers discovered that Biden had his own cancer research charity organization called The Biden Cancer Initiative. Even though Biden spent many millions of dollars of donations on salaries for employees, tax records show that he did not spend one dollar on cancer research, and he never produced a single grant:
"A cancer charity started by Joe Biden gave out no money to research, and spent most of its contributions on staff salaries, federal filings show. The Biden Cancer Initiative was founded in 2017 by the former vice president and his wife, Jill Biden, to 'develop and drive implementation of solutions to accelerate progress in cancer prevention, detection, diagnosis, research and care and to reduce disparities in cancer outcomes,' according to its IRS mission statement. But it gave out no grants in its first two years, and spent millions on the salaries of former Washington, DC, aides it hired."
-Isabel Vincent, "Tax filings reveal Biden cancer charity spent millions on salaries, zero on research," New York Post, Nov 14, 2020, retrieved Jan 2, 2025, [https://nypost.com/2020/11/14/biden-cancer-initiative-spent-millions-on-payroll-zero-on-research-report/]

The article goes on to point out that Biden hired many of his personal friends and colleagues, including Gregory Simon, a former Pfizer (pharmaceutical company) executive, and Danielle Carnival, Barack Obama's former chief of staff, just to name a couple. Biden's friends made anywhere from $250,000 to $430,000 in a single fiscal year, all paid for by the charitable donations of Americans looking to help their loved ones, and any leftover money went to pay for their meals, travel, hotel rooms, and to put on lavish conferences for their scam charity.

In fact, if you want to know how "charitable" Joe Biden is, reporters discovered that, as of 2008, Biden and his wife had only given an average of $369 per year to charity, meaning that he is more than happy to take millions from average middle class workers and give it to his friends, but will NOT step up to help on his own dime.

"Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden and his wife gave an average of $369 a year to charity during the past decade, his tax records show. Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama's campaign today released 10 years' worth of tax returns for Biden, a senator from Delaware, and his wife Jill, a community college instructor. The Bidens reported earning $319,853 last year, including $71,000 in royalties for his memoir, Promises to Keep: On Life and Politics. The Bidens reported giving $995 in charitable donations last year — about 0.3% of their income and the highest amount in the past decade. The low was $120 in 1999, about 0.1% of yearly income. Over the decade, the Bidens reported a total of $3,690 in charitable donations, or 0.2% of their income."
-Matt Kelley, "Biden gave average of $369 to charity a year," USA Today, Sept 12, 2008, retrieved Jan 2, 2020, [https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=5791846&page=1]

This does not include all the pay to play schemes behind the scenes, in which Biden extorted people using his political influence. We learned a lot more about that after 2020, but the point is that these are just more examples of cancer charities being scam organizations to defraud the American people.

John Richardson rightly said:
"Spokesmen for orthodox medicine—and particularly for the American Cancer Society—continue to cloak themselves in the mantle of their own prestige, deride any scientific opinion that differs from their own, and categorically denounce as absurd those things which they do not understand. Laetrile is the current victim of such scientific arrogance and ignorance."
-John A. Richardson, M.D., Laetrile Case Histories, 2005, p. 34, ISBN: 978-0-912986-38-8

Sadly, most Americans do not care about this issue. They are so preoccupied with feeling good about donating to a charity that they show little concern for the cause itself and become angry with people like me for exposing the truth, which strips away their self-righteous satisfaction, casting me out as an enemy, though I have no desire to be an adversary against them.

Am I therefore become your enemy,
because I tell you the truth?
-Galatians 4:16

Over the years, in my audio teachings (available to download for free at creationliberty.com), I have cautioned against simply donating money to a charity and labeling it "charitable." True charity often takes personal involvement, requiring men and women to contribute physical labor and engage in face-to-face interactions; those are the true heroes.

You would do more good for a man with cancer by giving him a copy of this book (which is free to read online) than by throwing your money away on a corporate so-called "charity." If you have a neighbor with cancer, and you want to be truly charitable, taking a bag of apricot seeds to him, along with a copy of (or link to) this book, would save you and your neighbor far more time and money.

If you choose to donate to a charitable cause, I urge you to do your due diligence by examining the facts, investigating where the funds are actually directed, and making an informed decision. While some charities generously distribute most of their donations, such organizations are now rare, so exercise caution, as contributing to deceptive charities could unwittingly worsen the cancer epidemic.

Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
-1 Thessalonians 5:21

 

Most people are familiar with the term 'metabolism,' and in my experience, many associate it with weight loss, often claiming that thinner individuals have a "higher metabolism." But what exactly is metabolism?

To put it in simple terms, metabolism is just chemical reactions in the body, and the set of chemical reactions that take place in your body are essential for maintaining your life and health. For example, every chemical reaction in your body requires water, which is why if you do not drink enough water, you become dehydrated, which can lead to delirium (a serious medical condition of extreme confusion and lack of mental capability), and eventually, once your body can no longer process chemical reactions, you will die.

Metabolism is essential, or to put a finer point on it, providing your body with the necessary elements for chemical reactions is essential. I want to make this abundantly clear to all readers: the food you consume supplies the chemical compounds needed for your metabolism to function as designed.

This means that your body must have a variety of chemical compounds to make the reactions work, otherwise, it will eventually run out of what it needs to see, hear, breathe, move muscles, and think. For example, your thoughts are something you think daily without considering your considerations, but your brain requires chemical compounds to function, otherwise, you would not be able to read or understand this sentence.

When you drink water, the cells in your body do not just absorb it automatically, otherwise, you could get hydrated by jumping in a lake. Putting a cell into water creates a wet cell, but it would not be able to use the water for any meaningful function. Your body must acquire other chemical compounds called minerals, used in combination with water, to make the water useful for the cell's operation.

Vitamins, minerals, proteins, fats, and carbohydrates are all things the body needs, and you typically get them by eating fresh, organic fruits, vegetables, meats, dairy, grains, and water. Unfortunately in America, fresh organic foods have taken a back seat to processed foods, which are made by removing many of the necessary elements your body needs to have a healthy metabolism, and replacing them with chemicals that are not only foreign to your body's required tasks, but also counterproductive.

Whenever your body interacts with a foreign chemical substance it does not recognize, it must use vital resources to extract that chemical from the body. Your body will try to get rid of it through various means, by any orifice available, even through the pores of your skin if necessary. If the body becomes overwhelmed with foreign chemicals, it goes into emergency mode to eject the harmful substances, shutting down non-vital functions first to deal with the problem, which is why people experience bodily pain and deterioration.

One point of interest is that a cell's ability to duplicate itself takes less energy than it takes to repair itself. In the world of cells, duplication gets preferential treatment over repair. However, when cells are damaged and cannot repair themselves, they still duplicate, and that duplication process without repair causes your body to accumulate more damaged cells, and as they stack on top of each other, they form what we commonly call a "tumor."

This is why modern medicine under a pharmaceutical philosophy will never "cure" cancer because what they call "cancer" is not actually cancer. When they say "cancer," what they mean is a "tumor," but as we learned in earlier chapters, the tumor is only a SYMPTOM of the cancer, not cancer itself. Cancer can only be cured through proper diet, and because pharmaceutical "medicine" makes diet an afterthought rather than a foundation of health, patients stuck in the pharmaceutical system will continue to devolve in an endless cycle of disease, and die slow, painful, and early deaths.

When I was a teenager, I had a problem with eating garbage, processed foods, like cookies, snack cakes, and candies, but I was still very thin because I was active (going to school full time and working full time, as well as extra-curricular activities), and I also did not eat much. Never once did anyone educate me that what I was putting into my body is what I was made of, or in other words, our cells are made up of that which we eat, and therefore, due to that lack of knowledge and education, my diet consisted of mostly junk, but I did not eat as much as other boys my age, which is why, despite being over six feet tall, I only weighed about 135 lbs.

Into my 20s and then later my 30s, I only weighed about 145 lbs, which is far underweight since the average proper weight class for a man of my height and build should have been about 170 lbs. As I am writing this chapter, my wife and I have changed many things about our diets to focus on healthy metabolism, and over the past few years, I have built an exercise regimen for myself.

Before discussing the changes we made, I need to clarify that I am like most people: I paid little attention to my health until struck by serious injury or illness. The Lord God designed our bodies with warning signs to prompt us to change our ways, yet sadly, many of us end up bedridden, questioning why God afflicted us, when in truth, we brought it upon ourselves, deteriorating for years before falling ill or getting injured.

For me, it was a spinal hernia, which is a swelling of the soft tissue in the spine that pressed against the nerves in my back, causing intense pain, and eventually, I ended up in bed for almost three weeks straight, unable to move the right side of my body. This was my major wake-up call, and our first step was to see a chiropractor.

The chiropractor was helpful, and I do encourage people to see them if they have problems, but I want readers to understand that chiropractors should always be viewed the same way as aspirin: It is a TEMPORARY solution while you fix the cause of the problem. Most people visit chiropractors like any other physician, expecting the doctor to fix their problems for them, but chiropractors diagnose, and offer temporary fixes, while in the mean time, you are supposed to get your diet, stretching, and exercise regimen in order so that, one day, you do not have to visit the chiropractor any longer.

I began receiving chiropractic adjustments and took supplements designed to rebuild and repair my soft spinal tissue. It took roughly a year to regain normal function, but even then, I suffered significant neck and back pain, worsened by my lifelong minor scoliosis, a curvature of the spine, which became so severe that I could only manage jobs requiring mostly seated work.

Meanwhile, my metabolism was diminishing, and it got to a point where I started to get belly fat in my 30s, which was the first time in my life I ever experienced it. I fervently hated belly fat, so a couple of years after starting chiropractic sessions, I decided it was time to do some research into exercise.

I also HATE exercising, a sentiment I am sure many readers share. As I studied, I was surprised to learn that some athletes and body builders also hate exercise. The goal is not to fall in love with exercising, but rather, to create discipline, and if you start too hard and fast on exercising, you will burn out quickly, so my advice (from someone who hates exercise) is to start small and create a daily routine.

My exercise, at first, just consisted of doing sit-ups to strengthen my core, and I got some advice not to count reps, but to work "to fail," or rather, do them until I could not do another. I did three types of sit-ups to fail 4-5 days per week.

This only took me roughly 10 minutes, and I had no desire to do more than that because I did not like exercising in the first place. However, part of my lack of motivation came from being told that I was just a skinny guy all my life, and no one ever told me that I could change that if I worked hard enough.

I know it sounds silly, but I never understood that it was something I could change, and if we do not teach others to change, leading by example, then many may be left thinking that there is nothing they can do to fix their unhealthy habits. Starting with just a 10 minute routine, five days per week, is enough to get the ball rolling because the focus should be on creating a habit, and once the habit is created, change will come.

After months of doing core exercises most days of the week, I noticed some improvements in my day-to-day life. Some of my pain disappeared, and my fat belly tightened up a bit.

Many Americans want quick, easy routes to success, relying on so-called "natural healing" schemes (the vast majority of which are based on fallacious logic and false science claims) or pharmaceutical scams, believing a magic pill will fix their problems, but this more difficult route is the true natural way, relying on discipline and persistence instead of instant gratification that always comes with a price in the long run. Delayed gratification is very satisfying, and with this new encouragement, I decided it was time to start adding in pushups, so I found three types of pushups to do to fail, and added those on top of my situps.

This put me at a 20-minute routine, which I did faithfully 4-5 days every week, without focusing on changing my body mass, but rather, I only focused on my need for exercise to maintain my health and general wellness. Everyone needs to find a reason to exercise and keep themselves healthy, and over time, my primary reasons to continue working in physical exercise were as follows:

The Lord Jesus Christ created my body and gave it to me. It is my responsibility to upkeep it, and not take it for granted. My family needs me to provide for and protect them, and I cannot do that if I am weak, so I need to strengthen myself to do my job. The more I exercised, the more I found pain relief in various parts of my body, which became another motivator. If my body heals through dedication to diet and exercise, I can become an example to the church, to show other Christians the path they ought to take to lead healthy and productive lives, as well as those outside the church, that they would live long lives, being given as much time as possible to be saved.

Understand that if your primary motivation is to "look good," that is entirely acceptable; there is no need for embarrassment. Some may claim I am vain for saying this, but I would not begrudge anyone for wanting to look good for his/her spouse. Any motivator is better than none. However, keep in mind that results will not come overnight, and I emphasize that you should avoid attempting too much at once, as this can lead to burnout and quitting shortly after starting; instead, begin with small, simple steps and gradually progress to more challenging exercises.

As I continued with my situps and pushups, I started experiencing new, intense pain in my shoulders that would not go away, and this was part of my educational process in understanding how muscles work. Because I worked on my core (with situps), arms and chest (with pushups), I neglected my back, which caused my newly built, tightened muscles in the front to pull heavily against my weak (or nonexistent) muscles in my back, putting a sharp load on my shoulders which left me with chronic pain.

As I started to look into back exercises, it took me some time to discover that pullups were the answer, and with that, I discovered something called "calisthenics," which is a form of strength training that utilizes compound exercises, using your own body weight as resistance. Although the workouts are hard, the previous training I had already done helped me transition into this, and it was the first time I found workouts to be enjoyable and rewarding. They are not "enjoyable" in the sense that I like doing them, because it is hard work, but I enjoy the rewards of the work, which motivates me to keep going.

When starting pullups (with palms facing away from you onto the bar, which is the position you need to develop proper back muscles), I did what are called "negatives," which means I jumped to the bar and slowly lowered myself down. As I continued to do these, I was eventually able to do a full pullup, albeit with a lot of pain because, as I would come to find out, my lack of exercise for so many years left me with weak muscles, and my tendons were hurting.

For those considering trying these things for yourself, note that you will occasionally encounter these types of challenges, but do not give up; you must study the issues and learn how to overcome them. The internet is a great place to learn, as there are many free articles and videos that can help you to understand and overcome your weaknesses. As I mastered exercises to strengthen my forearms, shoulders, and back muscles, I can now perform multiple pullups with proper form, and I am training to build the strength needed for muscleups.

I wrote this paragraph in the winter of 2025, and I am almost five months into my calisthenics training. I weigh 175 lbs, most of which is muscle, and I have never felt better and more physically fit in my life, meaning that now, in my 40s, I have less pain and more strength than I had as a teenager, and I have future goals I want to meet over the next couple of years as I get stronger.

Remember that this is in combination with the dietary changes I made, and I will get to that in a moment, but I want readers to understand that exercise is vital to creating a healthy metabolism because you are directing (or informing) your body on what it is to be used for, or you could say you are giving your body orders. Your body responds in obedience to that non-verbal communication by increasing metabolic rates to match the strain you are putting on it, so that means you need to have some sort of resistance-based exercise regimen to push yourself.

As I mentioned, the best approach is to choose one exercise and perform it consistently for a few months before incorporating anything new. This could be squats, pullups, pushups, situps, or another basic exercise, as long as it involves weighted resistance (using dumbbells or body weight) that pushes you to failure, making you strain to complete your final rep. Commit to 15-20 minutes of intense exercise at least 3-4 days per week, starting with something simple, then adding new exercises every few months as you grow stronger, because establishing a consistent exercise habit is crucial, and the more you do it, the easier it becomes to sustain.

An additional tip is to find a partner to do this with if possible. Friend, sibling, or spouse—having someone join you on this journey will provide mutual encouragement.

Now on to the metabolic diet, which poses a significant challenge for many because, while numerous people desire to shed fat and improve health, few are willing to take the necessary steps. If you are already implementing some of these practices, that is commendable, but all of them will eventually need to be integrated. I am only offering beginner-level guidance here, as countless books and videos are available online for those who wish to explore these topics further, and the more knowledge you gain, the better equipped you will be to protect your health.

Be advised that, if you are a beginner, I would NOT recommend tackling all these dietary changes at once. Implement them gradually because your body needs time to adapt. Similar to exercise, attempting everything simultaneously will overwhelm your body, leading to quick burnout and a return to old habits. Instead, choose a few changes, practice them consistently for a few months, and then gradually incorporate more as you adjust.

Eat a balanced diet.

As we learned in chapter one, the dietary recommendations published by the U.S. government over the past century have mostly been phony and fraudulent, influenced by corporate financial interests that are contrary to public health. The following is my recreation of the Metabolic Food Pyramid that will hopefully tear down the deceptive FDA food pyramid in the minds of readers, and construct a better dietary philosophy in its place.


Some people advocate for vegetarian or meat-only diets, but I would not recommend either because your body requires a wide range of nutrients, and our corrupt government and the medical mafia have convinced us that certain healthy foods are bad for our health. For instance, the notion that Americans must avoid foods high in "fat and cholesterol" is preposterous, but many in the 21st century have fallen for the lie.

Your brain requires fat and cholesterol to function, and these vital nutrients also shield the brain from metal accumulation, which contributes to Alzheimer's disease. Thus, fats benefit the body, but the issue lies in people's reliance on processed foods made with harmful chemicals, forcing the body into a state of repair to expel foreign substances rather than process fats.

Since the body needs fats, it stores them, but the main reason it stores them instead of burning them is because the body is overloaded with emergency protocols to get rid of the harmful chemicals. Mainstream medical institutions issue public service announcements claiming fat and cholesterol are harmful, which is an absurd, oversimplified, and baffling stance from so-called "medical professionals." The proper approach is not to avoid fat and cholesterol but to consume a balanced, chemical-free diet of organic foods to enable the body to efficiently process these nutrients.

The same applies to salt, which mainstream media and medical institutions have relentlessly criticized, insisting you must seek low-salt foods. Salt is beneficial and a vital mineral your body requires for metabolic stability.

When I was younger, I worked in fast food restaurants (a job I thank God I no longer have to do), where some customers occasionally requested low-salt or no-salt fries, believing it was healthier; however, the issue is NOT the salt. The real problem is that restaurant fries are not simply potatoes, often containing many ingredients (e.g. McDonald's fries have at least 19 ingredients), and to make matters worse, they are fried in vegetable oils, such as corn, canola, sunflower, and soybean, which, when fried and consumed, are extremely harmful to your body.
(See Chef's Resource, "What are the 19 ingredients in mcdonald's french fries?" retrieved Jan 10, 2025, [https://www.chefsresource.com/what-are-the-19-ingredients-in-mcdonald%CA%BCs-french-fries/])

Frying should be done in moderation—occasionally, not daily—and when you fry, use saturated fats like tallow, lard, butter (i.e. ghee), or coconut oil. Mainstream medical institutions and fake news media relentlessly preach against saturated fats, but natural saturated fats, such as those I just mentioned, are healthy in moderation, nutrient-rich, and heat-stable, preventing breakdown during cooking, and it is important to understand what that means.

Vegetable oil is heavily processed, and being synthetic rather than natural, it breaks down easily, meaning it is essentially rancid while still sealed on the grocery store shelf. It might have a golden color, but you are consuming rancid oil in your food. This causes inflammation, a major contributor to most illnesses, and introduces "free radicals" into your system, which are unstable molecules that harm healthy molecules like proteins, DNA, and fats, significantly increasing the risk of cancer.

Many Americans may ask: What about olive oil? Olive oil is suitable for dressings or dishes that do not require heat, such as bruschetta, but you should NOT use it for cooking on the stove or in the oven.

For those unaccustomed to organ meats, liver may seem disgusting, but it is a nutritional powerhouse. In fact, if you eat liver, you should stop taking multivitamins, which are FAR inferior and often counterproductive due to their imbalanced, man-made interpretation of nutritional needs.

Excess vitamins consumed through multi-vitamins are expelled through the urine, meaning you are peeing away your money. Liver is perfectly balanced by the Lord Jesus Christ's natural design (because Christ is the creator of this world and all within it, Col 1:16), and it provides nearly all the body's required nutrients in abundance, including vitamins, minerals, protein, and fats. For those like me who find the idea of eating liver unpalatable, there are more tolerable ways to consume it.

You can blend a small amount of liver into meat dishes, as is common in certain meals like dirty rice, a traditional southern dish. However, my wife and I consume it raw by cutting it into tiny pieces, placing them on a baking sheet with wax paper, freezing them overnight, and then swallowing them in the morning with juice during breakfast, much like taking vitamins.


If this information is new to you, remember, do not try to change all of this at once. Select a few things that you believe are crucial improvements in your household, and work on those for a few months because your body will need time to adapt to the changes.

Exercise.

As I noted earlier, one change you must absolutely make, if you have not already, is incorporating proper exercise. This was challenging for me because I found exercise boring and tedious, so I had to discipline myself. Some of you may be like me, having work that keeps you seated at a desk most of the day, meaning you must create an activity schedule because, while dietary changes are beneficial, your body cannot fully utilize them without regular physical activity.

When a man is ill in the hospital, nurses prioritize getting him up and walking, regardless of the pain. Lying in bed too long leads to a slow decline toward death, and likewise, insufficient activity in your daily life will gradually lead you to the same fate.

I have heard testimonies from people who lived into their 90s, and even past 100, attributing their longevity in part to walking three miles daily, rain or shine. While variations in weather may prevent walks every day, when possible, you should walk outdoors, as it jumpstarts your metabolism, promotes blood flow to prevent stagnation, aids your body in processing minerals and detoxifying, and provides essential sunlight exposure. I recommend walking three miles (5km) daily, which may seem a lot to some, but people routinely walked far more than that before the 20th century. If it feels overwhelming, divide it: walk 1.5 miles in the morning and 1.5 miles in the evening.

Getting sunlight during the day, particularly in the morning, supports your circadian rhythm (i.e. your natural sleep-wake cycle), promoting restful sleep, a vital component of a healthy metabolism. When doing my daily walks, it is disturbing to see how many houses have their blinds and curtains closed all day, so if you are someone who does this, change your habits now. Open the curtains and let the sunlight in! Despite medical "experts" claiming sunlight causes skin cancer, this is false; skin cancer results from nutrient deficiencies combined with the consumption of chemicals and free radicals, which impair your body's ability to properly utilize sunlight.

For example, one of the reasons people get sunburns today more often than they used to is because of the consumption of free radicals via processed vegetable oils. Free radicals prevent your body from doing its normal job, which can heavily contribute to skin cancer. Do not let the medical mafia fool you into thinking that getting sunlight is somehow harming you; that is ludicrous for many reasons.

Once you establish a daily walking routine and feel comfortable with the habit, you should incorporate resistance exercise into your weekly schedule, using either external weights or your body weight. As I mentioned earlier, you need exercises that push you to strain on the final rep. I have observed people, particularly women, who use light weights and walk around as if engaging in serious exercise, but this is an illusion of resistance that does not challenge them to grow stronger, resulting in minimal impact on their overall health.

Americans in the 21st century often complain about exercise, overlooking how much more physically demanding daily tasks were just two centuries ago. To get water, our ancestors had to draw it from a well and carry it themselves, a heavy task, meaning they got far more weight-lifting exercise than most of us do today.

Women frequently make excuses, citing their generally lesser strength compared to men, but in the Bible, the wise and virtuous woman of Proverbs 31 strengthens herself to overcome that weakness. A woman dedicated to the Lord Jesus Christ recognizes that she must adopt a diligent, hard-working mindset akin to that of adult men, and this reflects a philosophy of charity, aiming to make her mind and body as useful to her family as possible:

She girdeth her loins with strength,
and strengtheneth her arms.
-Proverbs 31:17

Watch ye, stand fast in the faith, quit you [i.e. carry out your duties] like men, be strong. Let all your things be done with charity.
-1 Corinthians 16:13-14

It is not charitable to lack discipline and become obese. Neglecting your health, burdening your family with hefty medical costs, and requiring their constant care is not charitable. Consider these factors and let them drive your motivation for fitness.

Your muscular system, the body's largest organ, is crucial for metabolism. It regulates blood sugar, hormones, bone density, and other quality-of-life factors often problematic for Americans, such as mobility, flexibility, and balance.

Once you have established a comfortable walking routine, I recommend strenuous exercise for at least 20 minutes, 3-4 times per week. Some people consider purchasing special equipment like dumbbells or exercise machines, but that is unnecessary for the most part because you can utilize your own body weight for free.

Begin with push-ups, pull-ups, sit-ups, and/or squats, and I recommend the "Two-Set" method to build strength. This involves "pushing to fail," meaning you perform the exercise until you cannot complete another rep while counting the number of reps you did, rest for five minutes, and then repeat, aiming for 80% of the reps from your first set.

In other words, let's suppose you are starting this for your first time, and you can only do 5 push-ups to fail, meaning that you had to grunt and push really hard to get that last push-up. Good job. Now rest five minutes, then come back and do 4 more pushups, then stop, and do not do any more push exercises for the rest of the day.

Next, you can perform squats or sit-ups to target your leg or core muscles. Select one, complete as many reps as possible in the first round, rest for five minutes, then do a second round at 80% of the first round's reps. This should complete your 20-minute workout, which should be done AT LEAST three days per week, but no more than five, as your body requires rest to build muscle.

This is a good starting point to build your muscular system. Some readers might be obese and have a hard time doing these exercises, and there is no shame in starting out a bit easier if you need to, so here are some suggestions to reduce the load:

PUSH-UPS: Perform them on your knees to lessen the weight on your arms. If you cannot push off the ground, try push-up "negatives," slowly lowering yourself to the ground, then resetting without pushing up, which builds the muscle needed for full push-ups later. PULL-UPS: Perform "negative" pull-ups by jumping to the bar and slowly lowering yourself down. You can also use a chair to step up to the bar if you cannot jump to it, and I highly recommend jump rope to help strengthen your legs if jumping is too strenuous. If pull-ups are too difficult, try bodyweight rows or "Australian pull-ups," using a bar (or rings) at waist height, lying beneath it, and pulling your chest to the bar while keep your body straight. (You can reduce the weight load further by keeping your feet flat on the ground.) SIT-UPS: Instead of coming all the way up to touch your toes, while laying down with your knees bent (and hands behind your head) engage your core to lift your chest straight toward the ceiling as high as possible, then lower back down. Alternatively, lie flat, reach your hands toward the ceiling, and lift your chest straight up (a variation of "toe taps") to activate your core. SQUATS: Hold onto chairs for balance or place your back against a wall to reduce weight load until your legs strengthen, but aim to lower your hips below your knees, if possible, to maximize the exercise's benefits.

If you do push-ups and sit-ups on Monday, then do pull-ups and squats on Wednesday. Alternate exercises to give your muscles time to rest, as exercise breaks down muscle tissue (causing rips and tears), and rest allows muscles to recover, building strength and supporting bone growth simultaneously.

I suggest searching the internet for additional help or ideas, as I cannot cover everything without writing an entirely separate book. Numerous videos from physical therapists and personal trainers offer a wealth of suggestions for beginner or intermediate exercises, so explore that information to find what suits you best.

Eliminate processed foods.

Let's first make sure we understand what a "processed" food is:

processed (adj): prepared or modified by an artificial process or procedure
(See 'processed', Random House Dictionary, 2025, [dictionary.com]; See also Collins English Dictionary, 10th Edition, William Collins Sons & Co, 2012)

If you are not accustomed to checking ingredient labels, get used to it. Any product containing dyes, artificial flavors, gums, or natural flavors should be left on the shelf because these substances hinder your body's metabolism by forcing it to expend resources expelling harmful chemicals that cause long-term damage to your organs, brain, and gut.

If this frustrates you, or you are already thinking that this is the toughest part of the change and doubt your ability to do it because you cannot give up certain processed foods, then you are an addict. Disappointment is one thing, but the "I don't think I can do that" mindset mirrors what drug addicts and alcoholics say. You must acknowledge your addiction and seek help by confessing the truth to family and friends, and gain their support because discipline is essential to break free from your addiction.

My best advice for overcoming your junk food addiction is this: LEARN TO COOK. If you muster the courage to embark on this journey, you will discover that the destination rewards you with the most flavorful and revitalizing meals you have ever tasted, but the first step is to abandon the artificial foods produced by chemical manufacturers.

In January of 2025, I had my wife take some photos of commonly purchased products at a local grocery store. I want readers who are unfamiliar with this process to see what to look for and why these processed ingredients are so dangerous, so I selected only three products to keep things simple.

The first example is the breakfast cereal, Cinnamon Toast Crunch, which was my favorite breakfast cereal when I was a child:

If we could observe the entire manufacturing process from start to finish, I am certain we could uncover significant issues with ALL these ingredients, but we only need to look at a few to hit the major points. The primary concern, and what I consider the most critical warning, is any food labeled as "Bioengineered."

Bioengineering is a fancy way of saying "Genetically Modified" (GMO), where foreign chromosomes are spliced into plants, altering them into something entirely different. Deceptive companies like General Mills list "Whole Grain Wheat" as the primary ingredient to make it sound healthy, but if it is bioengineered, it is not true whole grain wheat. The corrupt, lobbyist-influenced FDA allows this deception, so General Mills can get you to consume their harmful product in blissful ignorance. They insert foreign DNA, often from animals, into plants like grain to make them pesticide-resistant, meaning GMO wheat is no longer wheat, as its genetic structure has been changed into something else, making it extremely difficult for your body to break down and utilize effectively.

Although the packaging lists vitamins and minerals, we cannot know their quantities or ratios (a vital factor I will address shortly). Furthermore, these vitamins and minerals are often added synthetically (deceptively labeled "enriched" or "fortified"), which is problematic because your cells cannot utilize them effectively. As I noted earlier, the Christian God of the Bible designed our bodies to process the natural substances He created for our consumption, and altering them renders them useless to us.

For instance, most vehicles in America, as of 2025, rely on internal combustion engines precisely engineered to use petroleum, or gasoline, combined with a carefully calibrated amount of oxygen to produce small explosions that, through various mechanical processes, propel the vehicle forward. If I poured tomato juice into my gas tank, not only would my car fail to function, but I would likely ruin the engine, as it was not designed to process tomato juice.

Similarly, your body is designed to process specific types of vitamins and minerals in particular forms. Providing the wrong fuel will not only impair its function, but can also cause damage by introducing substances it was not designed to process.

To put it another way, if you started drinking gasoline in significant quantities, you would die because your body cannot process it. You might be saved from death if you were rushed to the hospital to have your stomach pumped, which would help your body eject the foreign substance quickly enough to prevent death, but on its own, your body could not handle the overload.

If you swallowed a tiny amount of gasoline, you might feel mildly ill, but it would likely not be fatal, as your body could expel it. However, if you ingested a tiny amount of gasoline daily for many years, do you believe it would, over time, make you gravely ill, potentially leading to death?

This is precisely what many Americans are doing because the gasoline they are ingesting is sprinkled with cinnamon and sugar. I am not saying that poetically because on the Cinnamon Toast Crunch packaging, it says it uses "BHT" (Butylated Hydroxytoluene) as a preservative, which is made from petroleum.

American medical institutions, steeped in arrogance, remain baffled about why the U.S., despite its technological advancements and medical prowess, has higher cancer rates than nearly any other nation. Despite possessing the world's most advanced technology and information, we Americans rank among the most gullible people ever to walk the earth.

The cereal box also lists canola and sunflower oil as ingredients, which, as I noted earlier, are known contributors to cancer. Consuming heated vegetable oils introduces free radicals—damaged molecules that harm other molecules in your body. Manufacturing "experts" claim these are minor amounts and supposedly "harmless," yet no studies have explored the long-term effects; however, we should not need extensive studies to recognize that consuming food that damages your body's molecular structure is harmful, regardless of the quantity or length of time.

As a side note, I find it ironic that B17 is claimed to be harmful due to its cyanide content, yet dangerous chemicals are widely accepted and added to most grocery store foods without hesitation. If Americans truly understood how much their lives and health are manipulated and harmed by the whims of snake oil salesmen (i.e., Big Pharma), there would likely be an armed uprising tomorrow.

Sugar is not harmful when it is natural, organically grown cane sugar, but that is rarely used in grocery store products. When natural cane sugar is cooked, it turns brown, the color of good syrups like molasses. However, manufacturing companies often use beets to produce sugar, which some might consider healthy until they learn it is bleached to achieve a white color, and it is heavily processed, resulting in empty calories that contribute to weight gain.

Nearly any product containing "soy ingredients" should be avoided because they use unfermented soy. Soybeans are legumes, which are high in phytic acid. Phytic acid inhibits nutrient absorption and requires soaking to remove this blocker. However, manufacturers merely roast soybeans for their products, rendering any claimed "vitamins and minerals" in the cereal useless, as the phytic acid prevents your body from absorbing them.

Note the "caramel color," which is intriguing because, during my childhood, products used the term 'dye,' but that word has been abandoned due to its negative association with cancer. Despite the change in terminology, dyes or "coloring" remain hazardous to consume. To make things simple, if a product contains any colors, even labeled as "natural colors," leave it on the shelf. Many remain unaware that the processed foods they consume daily accumulate small amounts of cancer-causing chemicals in their bodies.

Your liver does a lot of the work to remove harmful chemicals from the body, and it can only do so much at once. This is why liver cancer is a common problem because once it runs out of the nutrients it needs to do its job, the damaged cells stack up, and tumors form.

When I was a boy, I heard the saying, "If you can't read it, don't eat it." Sadly, this wisdom is less common today, but I urge readers to embrace this philosophy, as ingredients you cannot decipher are often slowly making you ill over time.

The one exception to that rule is the vitamins and minerals list. Typically, you should apply the reading rule only to the ingredients list because, even if you cannot read the technical names of vitamins, they are still beneficial; however, another issue with vitamins and minerals in manufactured products must be addressed.

Vitamins and minerals are essential for life and health, but many people do not realize that certain vitamins and minerals counteract each other, meaning that when some are taken together, your body gains no benefit. This is a major drawback of multivitamins, as manufacturers, in nearly all cases, do not account for this issue.

Unfortunately, many Americans have been deceived, much like those misled by the corrupt Catholic Church, which has people visit its temples to perform pagan rituals to feel "holy," despite the fact that holiness is a gift of grace from Christ, not earned through works. (Rom 4:22-24, Eph 2:8-9) Similarly, most multivitamins serve as a ritual to make Americans feel "healthy," but without consuming the natural foods God provided, it is merely for show.
(Read Corruptions of Christianity: Catholicism here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

Vitamin C and B block each other, as do calcium and magnesium, meaning that taking them in a multivitamin yields little, if any, benefit. Similarly, calcium blocks iron absorption, which is why children whose parents let them drink milk with every meal end up with an iron deficiency.

As I mentioned earlier, consuming liver bites is far more effective, surpassing anything man-made, because the Christian God of the Bible designed it with perfect balance. Thus, efforts to "reinvent the wheel," so to speak, are futile, serving only to create patentable processes for corporate giants to profit by deceiving consumers addicted to their products, and charging them for a "vitamin" that only makes them feel like they are doing something healthy.

Next, let's look at the ingredients on a bag of Doritos, a popular corn chip:


Once again, we encounter vegetable oils and soy, which should be avoided. Additionally, it contains monosodium glutamate, a chemical flavor enhancer that is highly addictive, and many people, including myself, are allergic to it; I vividly recall the severe vomiting my body experienced after consuming it for the first time.

Corn syrup is an unnatural and heavily processed substance that cannot be effectively processed by your body. Your cells struggle to utilize sugar from corn, leading your body to store it as fat, much like clogging a drain, which promotes obesity and heavily slows down your metabolism.

We again encounter coloring, dyes known to cause cancer and negatively impact the brain in various ways, often listed as "Red 40," "Blue 1," and "Yellow 5" (as seen on the Doritos packaging). To be clear, any ingredient indicating a color should be left on the shelf. On January 15, 2025, when I wrote this paragraph, President Elect Donald Trump announced that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. would head up the Department of Health and Human Services, and RFK Jr. vowed to ban all such chemicals from food.

The FDA banned "Red 3" today (before Kennedy was appointed), but they had already banned it in cosmetics 35 years ago while refusing to do so in food. Therefore, this move appears to be political pretense to deflect scrutiny from Kennedy, who vowed to expose fraud in federal health agencies because, if the FDA were truly serving the American public, they should have banned all dyes in food decades ago.

Solving the root of the real problem would mean abolishing the FDA entirely, forever.

And one last example is Ensure:


We have already discussed ingredients like natural/artificial flavors, sunflower oil (which has the same harmful effects as vegetable oils), and gums, all of which should be avoided. Additional substances, such as carrageenan, listed in Ensure, cause inflammation in the body, and this man-made seaweed derivative, used as a thickener, is known to make your blood resistant to insulin, a critical point I will explain shortly.

Soluble corn fiber, a highly processed form of corn fiber added to the shake, is listed and can harm gut health, leading to digestive issues. Acesulfame potassium, an artificial sweetener, is also included, and all artificial sweeteners can contribute to diabetes.

When I say that artificial sweeteners (like those in Ensure) can cause diabetes, please do not take this lightly because, in the early 21st century, nearly 12% of the U.S. population suffers from it. It is well known that those with diabetes must take insulin shots, but not many Americans understand that insulin is naturally produced in the body, nor do they understand what causes the body to stop producing it.

Insulin is a hormone produced by your pancreas—an organ located behind the stomach in your abdomen—which enables your body to break down sugar. When your tongue detects sugar, it signals your pancreas to release the appropriate amount of insulin to convert sugar into a form your bloodstream's cells can utilize.

But what happens when your body takes in FAKE sugar from an artificial sweetener? Your pancreas cannot distinguish between real and fake sugar, producing insulin regardless of which is consumed, which causes a serious problem because fake sugar is extremely difficult for your body to break down into a form useful to your cells.

Fake sugar (via "artificial flavors" and also "natural flavors" which are highly processed) lacks the natural carbohydrates contained in real sugar. Those natural carbohydrates are part of what is needed to break the sugar down so it can be used by your cells.

Fake sugar stays in your bloodstream far longer than natural sugar because the body needs more time and insulin to break it down. So when your body cannot efficiently break down the fake sugar in your bloodstream, and you eat more fake sugar, it causes your blood sugar to rise, creating a condition known as hyperglycemia.

Furthermore, with your pancreas working overtime, it produces an overabundance of insulin to break down the never-ending cycle of fake sugar that overloads your bloodstream, and eventually, the pancreas stops working properly from exhaustion, and halts its insulin production. This is what creates the diabetic disease. Diabetic patients have a broken pancreas, requiring them to get regular (and painful) insulin shots, while at the same time, most of them continue to ingest garbage processed foods (like the ingredients in Ensure), keeping them perpetually sick.

Acesulfame potassium and sucralose are both artificial sweeteners made in a laboratory. Both have many other side effects I have not mentioned in this book, and both are in a wide variety of products you will see in early 21st century grocery stores.

Another issue to highlight is that Ensure contains 30 grams of protein but only 150 calories, a mathematical anomaly because 30 grams of protein equals roughly 120 calories, with the remaining 30 calories coming from fats and added chemicals. This product could only be healthy with a higher calorie count that includes the necessary carbohydrates to process protein, but natural carbohydrates have been removed to lower the calorie count, making it appear "healthier" to the uninformed consumer, despite its common use as a weight gain product. In reality, these are empty calories that heavily stress the body, lacking the nutrients needed to break down nearly anything in the shake.

This is in addition to the fact that, as I mentioned earlier, Ensure contains carrageenan, and I pointed out that it makes your blood resistant to insulin. To summarize, Ensure overworks your pancreas, forcing it to produce excessive insulin that cannot break down artificial sweeteners, while simultaneously including a substance that inhibits the very mechanism your body uses to process sugar.

And let us not overlook that this is labeled as the "#1 Doctor Recommended Brand." It is entirely possible this claim is false, and Abbott Laboratories, the makers of Ensure, know that no one would sue them for false advertising due to the difficulty of proving such a case. Alternatively, if it is indeed highly recommended by physicians, it further demonstrates how thoroughly brainwashed they are by the pharmaceutical industry, blindly endorsing harmful products that slowly kill their patients.

Though most of you likely do not consume this product, the reason I wanted to cover it is because it is most often used to feed the elderly. To that, I would note that if you hate your elders and want them to die faster, by all means, feed them Ensure, but if you have even the slightest care in your hearts for their well being, make sure this product never reaches their lips.

Stop consuming pasteurized dairy products.

My final warning to those new to the metabolic diet is about pasteurization, which damages the protein structure in milk-based products, and eliminates the natural probiotics in the milk that are needed for good bacteria growth in your gut. Pasteurization is one of the primary reasons there are so many lactose-intolerant people in America.

If you received a typical (and pathetic) public school education like I did, then you will likely remember learning that Louis Pasteur was an allegedly brilliant scientist who developed a number of inventions in the 19th century that we still use today. However, what they do not tell you is that the inventions he is known for, such as "pasteurization," are doing far more harm than good.

Pasteur invented pasteurization because people were getting sick from drinking raw cow's milk, but it was soon discovered that farmers in the area were milking sick cows, and so at the same time pasteurization was implemented, farmers stopped milking sick cows, which solved the problem. However, in a grand display of stupidity, mainstream medical institutions declared that pasteurization (which no one had needed for thousands of years) cured the illness people were getting from milk, instead of using Occam's razor, a philosophy in which the simplest explanation should take precedence over other, more complex explanations.

Purchase and drink raw milk from local farmers, but make sure that it is milk from cows that are grass fed from the pasture. Do not be afraid of farmers because they are typically quite friendly, and they will give you any information you need to know, so ask them directly if they milk cows that are pasture raised and grass fed, avoiding farms that feed their cows processed grains.

If you have trouble finding a place to buy from, I advise seeking out an Amish farm. Although I heavily disagree with their anti-biblical religion, they are an honest community which has an exemplary work ethic in their farming practices, and it is a good place to start looking if you want fresh and natural products.

It is understandable if you are unable to eliminate all things that have used the pasteurization process, such as cottage cheese or yogurt, but there are basic things you can get from local farmers that will be good for your family's health. To start out, just focus on getting your household milk changed, and once you get used to it, switch to butter and cheese made from the milk of grass-fed cows, and if your local farmers have other products available, you can make changes when you are ready.

Beware buying things from the "health" aisle in your grocery store, as there are many products among them that contain harmful ingredients. Do not trust what the grocery store labels as healthy, and always check the label yourself because you are the last line of defense for your family.

These are just a few examples to help you get started watching what you eat, and many people fear this because they think they must eat things that taste terrible as a replacement for their fake flavored products, but this is far from the truth. Natural, home-grown foods are the best tasting foods you can get, and again, if you learn to cook, you can eat dishes that you would normally only find in 4-star restaurants, which is why poor farmers usually eat better than anyone else in the world, both in terms of health and flavor.

As I briefly noted in chapter one, it is a grievous situation that, due to the destructive ideology of feminism, many women have abandoned their vital role in the kitchen. The kitchen serves as a watchtower, where women can wage war against the corruption of the pharmaceutical and manufacturing industries, safeguarding their families from the principalities and powers that seek to harm them, while earning the love and admiration of their healthy husbands and children, who view her as a blessing to all who enter her domain.
(Read Feminism: Castrating America here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

In summary, if you want to rid yourself of cancer, you can do it in four steps:

Stop the intake of harmful substances by removing processed foods. Start eating raw dairy and natural foods. Go for walks daily, and add resistance exercise to your regime. Get B17 from organic, bitter apricot kernels.

Yes, it is that simple.
It's The Simple Solution to Cancer.
Again, there is much more you can learn beyond this, but it is a great place to start. My wife and I have taken over a decade to learn many of these things and implement them, so take your time. Build your foundation on these principles, form good habits, and learn as you heal and grow stronger.



 

In chapter six, we learned about the leaders of the Sloan-Kettering Cancer Institute, and how they fooled the public by using the media to lie about the positive results of amygdalin in their experiments. Although we often think there is little justice in this world, we who trust in the Lord Jesus Christ should always remember that He brings justice at His preferred time because He warned us:

Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for
whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.
-Galatians 6:7

Sadly, these men did not take this warning seriously:

Lewis Thomas, President of Sloan-Kettering Institute who lied about the results of laetrile, died of lymphoma in 1993. Robert Good, President of the Sloan-Kettering Institute for Cancer Research who lied about the results of laetrile, died of esophageal cancer in 2003. Lloyd Old, the Director of the Cancer Research Institute who lied about the results of laetrile, died of prostate cancer in 2011.

They lie and lie and lie, believing they will not suffer consequences, that they will escape accountability on the Day of Judgment, when all must face God in the ultimate trial for their souls, only to end up in hell alongside the millions they deceived. Without the Lord Jesus Christ and His shed blood to atone for their sins before their death, their suffering for their crimes will be everlasting.

But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him [i.e. the Living God], which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him.
-Luke 12:5
(Read "Hell is Real And Many People Are Going There" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

In many cases, what they say is just as criminal as what they do not say, but silence is not an excuse to avoid the Judgment of God. Most physicians and surgeons who counsel others about cancer secretly know they would never take their own advice:
"A survey of 128 US cancer doctors found that if they contracted cancer, more than 80 per cent would not have chemotherapy as the 'risks and side effects far outweighed the likely benefits'."
-Cancer Active, "20 Things You Need to Know About Chemotherapy," July 7, 2016, retrieved Mar 31, 2015, [https://canceractive.com/article/20-things-you-need-to-know-about-chemotherapy]

They KNOW FOR A FACT that orthodox pharmaceutical medicine has no answer, and yet, they torture patients under their poisonous so-called "care." A professor of oncology at the State University of New York wrote:
"Many medical oncologists recommend chemotherapy for virtually any tumor, with a hopefulness undiscouraged by almost invariable failure. Most cancer patients in this country die of chemotherapy. Chemotherapy does not eliminate breast, colon, or lung cancers. This fact has been documented for over a decade, yet doctors still use chemotherapy for these tumors."
-Albert Braverman, M.D., quoted by Raymond Francis, Never Fear Cancer Again: How to Prevent and Reverse Cancer, Health Communications Inc., 2011, p. 26, ISBN: 9780757391903

Some will dismiss my book, claiming I lack medical expertise, but how do they address the fact that I cite medical experts who share my position and express the same views that I have presented in this book? Another oncologist stated:
"We have a multi-billion dollar industry that is killing people, right and left, just for financial gain. Their idea of research is to see whether two doses of this poison is better than three doses of that poison."
-Glen Warner, M.D., quoted by Peter Havasi, Education of Cancer Healing, Lulu.com, Vol. 2, p. 59, ISBN: 9781291453584

The former president of the American Chemical Society stated:
"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."
-Alan Nixon, PhD, quoted by Andreas Moritz, Timeless Secrets of Health and Rejuvenation, Ener-Chi Wellness Center, 2007, p. 338, ISBN: 9780979275753

Many years ago, I created a demotivational poster meme about Russian roulette, a deadly game where gamblers take turns pointing a six-chamber revolver, loaded with one bullet, at their heads and pulling the trigger. The first to die loses, and the surviving winner claims the money. I argue that chemotherapy is WORSE than Russian roulette because, in roulette, death is quick with less pain, the odds of survival are higher, and if you win, you get your money back.


This image has been censored on certain social media platforms as "inappropriate content," which is laughably hypocritical. It is deemed "inappropriate" to depict someone risking their life for money in a game of gun roulette, yet it is supposedly acceptable to watch people plunge into debt and poison themselves to death?

The First Amendment was designed to protect unpopular speech, not shield people from uncomfortable truths.

French cancer specialist Charles Mathe stated:
"If I contracted cancer, I would never go to a standard cancer treatment centre. Only cancer victims who live far from such centres have a chance. Yet, day after day, year after year, the Cancer Industry continues to put these toxic chemicals into the bodies of cancer patients. And the patients let them do it, even volunteering for new 'guinea pig' studies, simply because someone with a degree from a school of disease (also known as medical school) told them it was their 'only option.' It costs lots of money for them to poison the body of cancer patients, and the patients gladly pay it. Sadly, some people will spend six figures a year poisoning their bodies because their 'doctor told them to do it.' The truth is that there are many effective natural cancer treatments that don't require a barbaric procedure like chemotherapy.'"
-Charles Mathe, PhD, quoted by Margaret B. Mba, The Cancer Odyssey, Xlibris Corporation, 2011, p. 50, ISBN: 9781456885397

During World War I, chemical warfare emerged in an unprecedented manner, with Germans and Italians deploying mustard gas to kill enemy soldiers, causing horrific medical ailments and, in about 15% of cases, death—a fate that, given the gruesome details, might have been preferable. I will not elaborate on those details here, as reading about them was disturbing enough without having to recount them. American scientists began studying mustard gas to understand its effects on the body, discovering that it rapidly destroyed cells, prompting them to test it further on something in the body with elevated cell growth.

Would you like to take a guess at how they tested mustard gas? If you guessed cancer cells in their medical patients, you were correct:
"They found mustard gas and one of its chemical derivatives, nitrogen mustard, had a propensity to kill rapidly dividing normal cells, such as bone marrow. This led them to look beyond chemical warfare to the most rapidly growing cells—cancer. But with the war ongoing, work with chemical warfare agents was considered classified. Gilman was impatient. So under strict secrecy, he and colleagues at Yale University treated six terminally ill patients with infusions of nitrogen mustard."
-Charlotte D. Jacobs, Henry Kaplan and the Story of Hodgkin's Disease, Stanford University Press, 2010, p. 82, ISBN: 9780804774482

Mustard gas itself is not used in chemotherapy, but the principle is similar; biological agents engineered to kill are now claimed to "cure" illness. This differs from the cyanide in B17, a naturally occurring molecular structure created by the Christian God of the Bible to heal our bodies, but in contrast, these wartime experiments involved substances specifically designed to kill people.

"[S]ystemic cancer chemotherapy is a recent development with its historical origins in observations of the toxic effects on humans accidentally exposed to chemical warfare agents, mainly mustard gas, during WWI and WWII,"
-Guy Faguet, The War on Cancer: An Anatomy of Failure, Springer Science & Business Media, 2008, p. 69, ISBN: 9781402036170

"[T]he first class of 'modern' cancer chemotherapeutic drugs were born from the observation that 'mustard gas' developed as a military antipersonnel weapon in World War II caused lymphoid and bone marrow suppression."
-Michael C. Perry, The Chemotherapy Source Book, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2008, p. 30, ISBN: 9780781773287

Can we not reason that substances easily classified as biological weapons differ vastly from medical treatment? What planet are we living on where people think it is logical to label chemicals designed to torture and kill as "therapy?" Claiming chemical warfare cures cancer is as absurd as saying shooting someone in the leg cures athlete's foot.

Most of us can reason that these notions are absurd, so why do so many physicians prescribe toxic treatments they would never undergo themselves? Why are more physicians not publicly denouncing chemotherapy? I refer to it as the "medical mafia" for good reason: those who speak out risk losing everything they have worked for their entire lives.

Many who pursue a medical career were not popular in their early school years, choosing study over socializing. In college, they face the same scenario, dedicating long hours to studying and memorizing, enduring the stress of debt and the pressure to excel in exams. After years of effort, investing a significant portion of their lives in preparation, they finally earn their medical degree.

Now they can start helping people, presumably a key motivation for most medical students. They launch a practice or join a hospital, transitioning from being unpopular in school to earning high respect in the community. Moreover, they now earn substantial income, enabling them to pay off student loans, purchase a home, acquire a nice car, and provide their family with many benefits.

With that in mind, imagine an average nobody like me, a college dropout with no medical training, informs them of a simple cancer solution that American medical institutions have not only overlooked but actively suppressed. Do you believe a physician, having endured rigorous training, hardship, and now enjoying the rewards of their profession, would be inclined to listen to me?

In most cases, no.
As I have shown, the AMA has imposed a form of "medical apartheid" on our nation, exiling, prosecuting, and stripping licenses from anyone who dares challenge them. Do you believe a physician, having endured extensive hardship, rigorous medical training, and now reaping the rewards, would be willing to sacrifice all they have achieved to stand up for what is right?

In most cases, no.
Once again, let's revisit the question raised in chapter one, often posed before I can share details about the cancer solution and how it works: Why hasn't my doctor heard about this?! You should now be equipped with the knowledge to address that question and understand why a brief answer will not satisfy anyone. The primary reason so few know about the cancer solution is fear—fear of what others might think, fear of being fired, fear of losing respect, fear of persecution, fear of prosecution, and, most significantly, fear of guilt.

The fear of man bringeth a snare: but whoso
putteth his trust in the LORD shall be safe.
-Proverbs 29:25

Imagine you are a physician who has spent years unknowingly prescribing harmful cancer treatments, with many patients dying as a result; then someone like me, with far less formal education and expertise in your field, informs you that the cure is as simple as addressing a vitamin deficiency, and your oversight contributed to those deaths. The weight of such guilt could drive you insane, leaving you with two choices: embrace the truth and risk everything to save as many people as possible, or deny it, labeling your critics "quacks" to protect your prestige and paycheck.

Hopefully, readers can now understand why so few physicians are trying to do the right thing. Some are fighting the good fight because they have been brought to their knees in conviction of the evil they have seen and done, and they honorably share responsibility for causing harm.

To those men and women who have sacrificed their hard-earned achievements to do what is right, you have my forgiveness, respect, and encouragement. Yet, the vast majority abandon their oaths for honor and wealth, choosing to bow to the medical mafiosos who shield them from public scrutiny.

The oath I am referring to is known as the Hippocratic Oath, which I tend to call a "Hypocritic Oath," that is viewed by the general public as something holy and sacred. However, few people know it was actually started as a pagan oath, sworn to false gods:
"I swear by Apollo Physician and Asclepius and Hygieia and Panacea and all the gods and goddesses, making them my witnesses, that I will fulfill according to my ability and judgment this oath and this covenant:"
-Kenneth C. Davis, Don't Know Much About Mythology, HarperCollins, 2009, p. 230, ISBN: 9780061925757

The modern Hippocratic Oath says the following:
"I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:
I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.
I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures which are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.
I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.
I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.
I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.
I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.
I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.
I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.
If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help."
-Johns Hopkins Sheridan Libraries, "Hippocratic Oath, Modern Version," 1964, retrieved Jan 15, 2025, [https://web.archive.org/web/20150612190940/http://guides.library.jhu.edu/c.php?g=202502&p=1335759]

Note that the oath binds physicians to uphold the "hard-won scientific gains" of their peers, yet, as I have shown, many physicians have labored to conceal the truth, receiving awards for their lifetime achievements while obstructing true "scientific gains." Consequently, this oath may compel physicians to follow misguided paths, sharing only the so-called "knowledge" endorsed by "approved" institutions. This is a key reason I strongly disagree with the oath as it is written, as it can contradict basic reason and the scientific method, leading me to have a healthy skepticism of physicians, far more than I did in my earlier years of ignorance.

My irony detection meter overloaded when I read the line that said, "I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure," because this is opposed to the way the majority of clinics and hospitals operate today. They focus on treating symptoms, not causes, and based on their own words, they are looking to "cure" cancer, not prevent it. As we learned earlier, the "prevention" aspects preached by mainstream medical institutions withhold information, lie about data, and ignore major contributing factors for prevention because they have adopted a chemical-based philosophy to rule over all aspects of health in the name of protecting Big Pharma profits.

I believe that many people look at these oaths as nothing more than a formality, but there is a major reason why oaths are taken in any profession, whether it be a physician, a firefighter, a politician, or a police officer, and that is the freedom to lie. The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects the freedom of speech, and whether we like it or not, that also includes lies, meaning that, if someone wants to lie about someone else, that is protected speech.

The First Amendment includes a remedy for harmful lies through the right to petition the government for redress of grievances, allowing potential court-ordered payouts against liars, and thus, we need a mechanism to prosecute public servants who lie to the public, holding them accountable for the resulting harm. Physicians who knowingly spread lies about B17, amygdalin, laetrile, and chemotherapy have faced no repercussions for violating their oaths, while those who speak the truth have lost their careers, reputations, and freedom.

I cannot stress enough that a man wearing a stethoscope does not inherently make him correct in his words or actions, absolve him of guilt for wrongdoing, guarantee he is knowledgeable in all medical matters, or ensure he has your best interests at heart. Blindly trusting and following his every word due to his status is to respect persons, and I repeat, that is sin.

But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit
sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.
-James 2:9

It is not good to have respect of persons in judgment.
-Proverbs 24:23

To have respect of persons is not good: for
for a piece of bread that man will transgress.
-Proverbs 28:21

In the end, it does not matter how many physicians you consult, your health is YOUR responsibility. You must take the reins. You have to discipline yourself. You need to hold yourself accountable. Physicians are consultants, not miracle workers. Do not expect a doctor to wave a magic wand, or give you a mystic pill, and make you well. No one in this world owes you anything, and thus, it is no one else's responsibility to take care of your health except you.

Surprisingly, there are a substantial number of people who simply do not care, and would rather die a slow, painful death than take any personal responsibility. As a student of the Holy Scriptures, and from many years of experience, I can confirm that the greatest of all diseases are lust and laziness—the sins which lead to cancer.

I worked as an in-home caregiver for a time, assisting an elderly man who had lost some bladder and bowel control due to his battle with cancer. I offered to share the information presented in this book, but he bluntly stated he did not care and refused to consider anything that might ease his suffering.

I know another man whose wife had cancer, and I persistently tried to share this information with him, even opening my teaching on his computer for easy access. Over the following weeks, I checked in with him several times, but he repeatedly claimed he was too busy to read it. He had countless hours and substantial funds to invest in orthodox "treatment" for his wife's cancer, but refused to spare a small fraction of his time to review this book, and a few years later, his wife died—a death that could have been prevented.

In another instance, I knew a young woman who, when I began explaining the natural health solution for cancer to help her brother, interrupted and shouted at me in defense of orthodox medicine because she was firmly committed to the mainstream narrative. The moral of these stories is this: I cannot force anyone to listen, nor will I shove this information down their throats, as people will only heed it if the Lord God has opened their minds and hearts, often requiring them to first be humbled through hardships.

Over the past two decades since I began discussing this, I have encountered these situations repeatedly, and it remains astonishing how stubbornly resistant many people are to life-saving information, even as they suffer unto death. I caution readers that if you share the information in this book with others, brace yourself for shock, as you will also likely experience indifference, stubbornness, or hatred from them.

The Western diet of processed foods and chemicals is among the deadliest plagues of our modern age, spreading globally, even to the Hunza, who have lost aspects of their traditional lifestyle and are now facing unfamiliar illnesses. This began with the Karakoram Highway, a road constructed by China and Pakistan, opened for public use in 1986, running through Gilgit where the Hunza reside, enabling previously impossible shipping to flow freely through the Hunza Valley.

(See Seeds of Discovery, "The Secret of the Fountain of Youth: Hunza Food Culture," June 18, 2023, retrieved Jan 16, 2025, [https://youtu.be/f0OiaSrU0tQ?t=1187])

Today, Hunza Valley has been "modernized" with fiat currency and processed foods. While they continue to grow and cook traditional foods as they have for centuries, community elders in interviews have testified that mixing these with processed and packaged foods and drinks from modern culture has severely impacted their community's health, shortening lifespans and fostering harmful habits in their children.

In the documentary called The Secret of the Fountain of Youth: Hunza Food Culture, the owner of the local Shimshal Hotel said that about 90% of what the youth are eating is not healthy food anymore. The young men and women only eat about 10% of pure food grown locally by the Hunza farmers because they do not enjoy it like they once did, as they have become addicted to a processed diet, and many young people in Hunza are not staying with their families to farm, preferring to move to the big cities to find jobs.
(See Seeds of Discovery, "The Secret of the Fountain of Youth: Hunza Food Culture," June 18, 2023, retrieved Jan 16, 2025, [https://youtu.be/f0OiaSrU0tQ?t=1314])

Some Hunza men are developing businesses in the Valley to help combine Hunza cuisine with modern recipes, introducing their healthy eating in different ways. Karim Khan Saka is one of those men, who opened a pizza parlor called "Pizza Pamir," and in an interview, he said:
"People here no longer eat what is precious for our health. Dried fruits for example, like cherries, apples, apricots, etc. We dry them and sell them in the market, and then we buy things that are not healthy. That's because there is a big demand from tourists for dried apricots, apricot kernels and oil, and in almost every home, we harvest these and sell them to buy bad products that we use for ourselves... People don't have the same activities. Before, they were working all day long in the fields, leading the animals to the pastures. It has changed. Now, people are shopkeepers. They stay in their shops all day long. They don't have the same stamina and physical activity. As a result, the life expectancy has decreased. Now people don't live 100 years old. Now it is more around 80 years old."
-Karim Khan Saka, quoted by Seeds of Discovery, "The Secret of the Fountain of Youth: Hunza Food Culture," June 18, 2023, retrieved Jan 16, 2025, [https://youtu.be/f0OiaSrU0tQ?t=1460]

Believe it or not, a pizza man just told you the secret to a long, healthy, cancer-free life, but in the West, we are so arrogant, many of us refuse to listen to those who do not have a prestigious rank, title, class, and office. It was disheartening to hear what has happened to Hunza culture over the past few decades, but the lessons are still there, the information is still available, and by the grace of God, we have the power to change our households for the better, so that we may be examples to others.

The Hunza have not given up on their culture, and as is traditional among their people, they are adapting to their new environment by finding inventive ways to bring a healthy diet back to their community. They have large herds of yaks, which produce a lot of milk and meat from eating the natural herbs of the field, so they make yak burgers and pizza, using the cheeses they create from the milk, the bread from their grain, the meat from their animals, and sauces from their vegetables and herbs.

The Hunza still drink mineral-rich water flowing from the mountains, a practice Americans should consider because most of us do not get proper minerals in our diet. Regrettably, most Americans obsess over clear "purified" water, driven by the chemicals big companies add to our water, either intentionally (like fluoride) or through sewage runoff, yet fail to realize that without sufficient minerals, like those in Hunza water, our cells cannot process vitamins, a key factor in the poor health prevalent in the West.

Laetrile has little to no efficacy without a metabolic diet, but that being said, some of you might be curious how to get laetrile. There are a few things you should know about it first, and please keep in mind that these were all issues at the time I wrote this book; I cannot foresee what will happen decades from now.

The FDA claims legal authority over laetrile under the 1938 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, specifically citing the 1962 Kefauver-Harris Amendment, which mandates drug manufacturers to prove efficacy before sales. However, the FDA deceives Americans with this claim. The amendment cannot apply retroactively, so since laetrile was marketed as a cancer treatment before 1962, so banning it would require a public trial to evaluate its scientific basis. They want to avoid this, fearing evidence of laetrile's effectiveness against tumors might emerge, so they quietly "grandfathered" it in without public disclosure.

To understand this in more detail, let's take a look at Rutherford v. United States, which was a mid-1970s court trial with plaintiff Glen Rutherford suing the federal government for damages against his Constitutional right to seek the medical treatment he believed was best for his own health—in this case, laetrile. Rutherford rejected surgery, and instead went to Tijuana, Mexico to get laetrile treatment, and after a few weeks, he was relieved of all his cancer pain, returned to his home in Wichita, Kansas, and lived a normal life, working 10-12 hours days.

Rutherford required regular laetrile injections, and purchased it for personal use, not for sale, but the U.S. Secretary of Health tried to stop him by seizing the supplies he ordered. After reviewing the testimonies, letters, and receipts presented by the plaintiff, the judge concluded:
"The Court is compelled to find from the testimony and the exhibits that plaintiff Glen L. Rutherford was in late 1971 suffering from invasive adenocarcinoma and that by the use of laetrile, B17 or amygdalin (all being the same drug) his condition was cured, as there is no evidence to the contrary."
-Glen L. Rutherford v. United States of America and Casper Weinberger, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, United States District Court, Oklahoma, 399 F. Supp. 1208, Aug 14, 1975, No. CIV-75-0218-B, retrieved Jan 16, 2025, [https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/399/1208/1489145/]

This does NOT mean the district court ruled that laetrile cures cancer, and I stress this to prevent false rumors online; rather, in this case, the court assumed it for the sake of a ruling, as no evidence was provided to refute the claim. The court determined that the laetrile was ordered solely for the plaintiff's personal use, and the evidence supported this. The carrier delivering the laetrile was jailed and fined $10,000 (equivalent to $58,000 or 0.58 Bitcoin in 2025). The court, misinterpreting the law, ruled against Rutherford receiving his laetrile package, claiming it was a "new drug," and attempted to justify their decision under the 1962 Kefauver-Harris Amendment.

Thankfully, Rutherford appealed that decision, and in 1977, the Western District of Oklahoma Court, presided by Judge Bohanon, said:
"The point can be couched in simple terms. Many intelligent and mentally competent citizens in this nation have made a deliberate decision that they would like to employ an unproven and largely unrespected treatment in an effort to comfort, if not save, lives that orthodoxy tells them have already been lost. They do so with an acute awareness of professional medicine's assessment of their choice. Their decision should be respected... IT IS ALSO HEREBY ORDERED that the defendants in this action, the United States of America, its agents, agencies and instrumentalities, including, in their official capacities, Joseph A. Califano, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, Donald Kennedy, Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, and Vernon D. Acree, Commissioner of U.S. Customs Service, and their successors and agents are enjoined from impeding or preventing the importation and interstate transportation of laetrile by any members of the plaintiff class or their duly designated agents. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that such laetrile can be imported and utilized solely for the personal use and benefit of the plaintiff class members."
-Glen L. Rutherford v. United States of America, United States District Court, Oklahoma, 429 F. Supp. 506, April 8, 1977, No. CIV-75-0218-B, retrieved Jan 16, 2025, [https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/429/506/1554980/]

To summarize his well stated point, American citizens have the Constitutional right to decide for themselves how they will treat their own illness, and the FDA was ordered to stand down. To further lay the legal smack down on the FDA, in another hearing on the same case, Judge Bohanon eloquently ruled:
"Having ascertained, during the December 30, 1976, hearing, that a competent administrative record did not exist, the Court then requested that the FDA make available to the Court the written basis for the agency's determination with regard to Laetrile, no matter how casual or unstructured its form or content might be; whereupon the Court was advised that no such rationale existed in any form. Clearly, federal agencies may not rule by fiat [i.e. authoritatively] invoking only some unexplained application of their own expertise in defense of policy decisions they have made."
-Glen L. Rutherford v. United States of America, United States District Court, Oklahoma, 424 F. Supp. 105, Jan 4, 1977, No. CIV-75-0218-B, retrieved Jan 16, 2025, [https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/424/105/1444550/]

In short, the courts have ruled that the FDA has no business in your decisions to treat your disease, however, they have taken it upon themselves to ban the sale of laetrile within U.S. borders, without any official clarification about their qualms against it. Many other lawsuits have been filed against the FDA's ban on the use of laetrile, and mainstream sources sometimes use that as a justification to say that laetrile is quackery, but the cases have been thrown out because the FDA has no rule, order, or law on the books to ban the use of laetrile.

Although you can legally purchase laetrile for personal use and have it shipped within the U.S., finding foreign sellers willing to take the risk is challenging. They are reluctant to face harassment from federal agents or endure lengthy court battles, making it difficult to obtain within American borders.

In conclusion, laetrile is not banned for use by the U.S. government, but it cannot be sold by any business operating on U.S. soil. However, in my opinion, laetrile is unnecessary unless under a dire, life-threatening emergency, and instead, I recommend getting B17 through natural sources, such as apricot seeds.

Remember, it would be a daunting task for Big Pharma to have a natural food banned for use, and it would be nearly impossible for government to regulate it. Could you imagine the federal government trying to ban and seize all apricots in America? That is comical to consider. They do not have a fraction of the man power they would need for such ridiculous law enforcement. If you simply consume apricot kernels, which have the highest known concentration of B17/amygdalin in the world, that is as good, if not better, than getting laetrile.

I want to briefly thank any of you who took the time to read this book, as all my work is for nothing unless someone reads it. If you found this information helpful, please share it with someone else, that another life might be saved.

If any readers want to learn more about the corruptions of Big Pharma, and how they have deceived nearly all Americans (and the world) through propaganda, I have another book you may be interested in reading called Psychology: Hoodwinked by the Devil. As always, all my books are available free to read at creationliberty.com, but if you decide to purchase a copy of this (or any other book), I thank you for helping to support my family while I work. No matter how long you might live, death is a guarantee, so there is nothing more important to understand than the Gospel of Salvation in Jesus Christ. Sadly, there are millions upon millions of churchgoers around the world who put their faith in a false gospel that cannot save them. This is why I wrote a short book called Why Millions of Believers on Jesus Are Going to Hell which you can find at creationliberty.com, and I hope you will consider reading that as well. Without the Lord Jesus Christ, I never would have discovered this information, nor understood it, and so all honor and praise go to Him for His blessings of mercy on us. I hope for your family's health, and that you will set an example that will be followed by your posterity.

My son, forget not my law; but let thine heart keep my commandments: For length of days, and long life, and peace, shall they add to thee. Let not mercy and truth forsake thee: bind them about thy neck; write them upon the table of thine heart: So shalt thou find favour and good understanding in the sight of God and man. Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths. Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the LORD, and depart from evil. It shall be health to thy navel, and marrow to thy bones.
-Proverbs 3:1-8

Beloved, I wish above all things that thou mayest prosper
and be in health, even as thy soul prospereth.
-3 John 1:2