Chapter Eleven
A NEW DIMENSION OF MURDER

Anti-cancer drugs shown to be ineffective and cancer-causing; FDA-approved experiments on humans resulting in death from drugs rather than from cancer.

The following article appeared in the Los Angeles Times on August 18, 1973, under the heading:

CANCER "CURE" LAETRILE HIT:

Los Angeles (UPI) - The manufacturers and distributors of the drug Laetrile were called "purveyors of deceit and outright quackery" Wednesday by the president of the California division of the American Cancer Society.

Helene Brown ... said the FDA has tested Laetrile at regular intervals, obtained negative results, and prohibited its use as a cancer remedy.

Cancer quackery is "a new dimension of murder," according to Mrs. Brown who said ... there are now 10 kinds of cancer which can be cured or controlled by chemotherapy - the treatment of disease by drugs.

Less than a month later, while speaking at an ACS national conference on cancer nursing, Mrs. Brown said flatly:

"Present medical knowledge makes it possible to cure seventy percent of all cancers, if they are detected early."(1)

1. "Cancer Quacks Deadly," (AP) The Clarion Ledger, (Miss.), Sept. 13,1973.
 

Spokesmen for the American Cancer Society never tire of Perpetuating the myth of "proven cures." But they seldom look quite so foolish in the eyes of those who know anything about true survival statistics as they do when they speak of cures by chemotherapy.

We briefly have viewed the miserable results obtained by orthodox surgery and radiation. However, the record of so-called anti-cancer drugs is even worse. The primary reason for this is that most of them currently in use are highly poisonous, not just to cancer but to the rest of the body as well. Generally they are more deadly to healthy tissue than they are to the malignant cell.

All substances can be toxic if taken in sufficient quantity. This is true of aspirin, sugar, Laetrile, or even water. But, unlike those, the anti-cancer drugs are poisonous, not as a result of an overdose or as a side-effect, but as a primary effect. In other words, their poisonous nature is not tolerated merely as a necessary price to pay in order to achieve some desired effect, it is the desired effect.

These chemicals are selected because they are capable of differentiating between types of cells and, consequently, of poisoning some types more than others. But don't jump to the conclusion that they differentiate between cancer and non-cancer cells, killing only the cancer cells, because they do not.

The cellular poisons used in orthodox cancer therapy today cannot distinguish between cancer and non-cancer cells. They act instead to differentiate between cells that are fast-growing and those that are slow-growing or not growing at all. Cells that are actively dividing are the targets. Consequently, they kill, not only the cancer cells that are dividing, but also a multitude of normal cells all over the body that also are caught in the act of dividing.

Theoretically, those cancers that are dividing more rapidly than normal cells will be killed before the patient is, but it is nip and tuck all the way. In the case of a cancer that is dividing at the same rate or even slower than normal cells, there isn't even a theoretical chance of success.

In either event, poisoning the system is the objective of these drugs, and the resulting pain and illness often is a torment worse than the disease itself. The toxins catch the blood cells in the act of dividing and cause blood poisoning. The gastrointestinal system is thrown into convulsion causing nausea, diarrhea, loss of appetite, cramps, and progressive weakness. Hair cells are fast-growing, so the hair falls out during treatment. Reproductive organs are affected causing sterility. The brain becomes fatigued.

Eyesight and hearing are impaired. Every conceivable function is disrupted with such agony for the patient that many of them elect to die of the cancer rather than to continue treatment.

It is ironic that the personnel who administer these drugs to cancer patients take great precautions to be sure they themselves are not exposed to them.

The Handbook of Cancer Chemotherapy, a standard reference for medical personnel, offers this warning:

The potential risks involved in handling cytotoxic agents have become a concern for health care workers. The literature reports various symptoms such as eye, membrane, and skin irritation, as well as dizziness, nausea, and headache experienced by health care workers not using safe handling precautions.

 

In addition, increased concerns regarding the mutagenesis and teratogenesis [deformed babies] continue to be investigated. Many chemotherapy agents, the alkylating agents in particular, are known to be carcinogenic [cancercausing] in therapeutic doses. [Emphasis added.] (1)

Because these drugs are so dangerous, the Chemotherapy Handbook lists sixteen OSHA safety procedures for medical personnel who work around them. They include wearing disposable masks and gowns, eye goggles, and double latex gloves.

The procedure for disposing needles and other equipment used with these drugs is regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency under the category of "hazardous waste."

Yet, these same substances are injected directly into the bloodstream of hapless cancer patients supposedly to cure their cancer!

Most of these drugs are described as radiomimetic, which means they mimic or produce the same effect as radiation. Consequently, they also suppress the immune system, and that is one of the reasons they help spread the cancer to other areas. But whereas X-rays usually are directed at only one or two locations, these chemicals do their deadly work on every cell in the body.

As Dr. John Richardson has pointed out:

Both radiation therapy and attempts to "poison out" result in a profound hostal immunosuppression that greatly increases the susceptibility to metastasis. How irrational it would be to attempt to treat cancer immunologically and/or physiologically, and at the same time administer immunosuppressants in the form of radiation of any kind, methotrexate, 5-FU, Cytoxin, or similarly useless and dangerous general cellular poisons.

 

All of these modalities, as we know, have been used to depress the rejection phenomena associated with organ transplantation. The entire physiological objective in rational cancer therapy is to increase the rejection phenomena.(2)

1. Roland T. Skeel, M.D., and Neil A. Lachant, M.D., Handbook of Cancer Chemotherapy; Fourth Edition (New York: Little, Brown and Company, 1995),
2. Open letter to interested doctors, Nov., 1972; Griffin, Private Papers, op. cit.

The view that toxic "anti-cancer" drugs usually accomplish. just the opposite of their intent is not restricted to the advocates of Laetrile. It is a fact of life (or shall we say death?) that has become widely acknowledged even by those who use these drugs.

Dr. John Trelford, for instance, of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Ohio State University Hospital has said:

At the present time, chemotherapy of gynecological tumors does not appear to have increased life expectancy except in sporadic cases... The problem of blind chemotherapy means not only a loss of the effect of the drugs, but also a lowering of the patient's resistance to the cancer cells owing to the toxicity of these agents [Emphasis added.](1)

Dr. Trelford is not alone in his observation. A report from the Southern Research Institute, dated April 13, 1972, based upon research conducted for the National Cancer Institute, indicated that most of the accepted drugs in the American Cancer Society's "proven cure" category produced cancer in laboratory animals that previously had been healthy!(2)

1. "A Discussion of the Results of Chemotherapylogical Cancer and the Host's Immune Response," Sixth National Cancer Conference proceedings, op. cit.
2. NCI research contract PH-43-68-998. Information contained in letter from Dean Burk to Congressman Lou Frey, Jr., May 30,1972; Griffin, Private Papers, op. cit., p. 5.

In a courageous letter to Dr. Frank Rauscher, his boss at the National Cancer Institute, Dr. Dean Burk condemned the Institute's policy of continuing to endorse these drugs when everyone knew that they caused cancer.

He argued:

Ironically, virtually all of the chemotherapeutic anti-cancer agents now approved by the Food and Drug Administration for use or testing in human cancer patients are (1) highly or variously toxic at applied dosages; (2) markedly immunosuppressive, that is, destructive of the patient's native resistance to a variety of diseases, including cancer; and (3) usually highly carcinogenic [cancer-causing]...

 

These now well established facts have been reported in numerous publications from the National Cancer Institute itself, as well as from throughout the United States and, indeed, the world. Furthermore, what has just been said of the FDA-approved anticancer chemotherapeutic drugs is true, though perhaps less conspicuously, of radiological and surgical treatments of human cancer...

In your answer to my discussion on March 19, you readily acknowledged that the FDA-approved anti-cancer drugs were indeed toxic, immunosuppressive, and carcinogenic, as indicated.

 

But then, even in the face of the evidence, including your own White House statement of May 5, 1972, all pointing to the pitifully small effectiveness of such drugs, you went on to say quite paradoxically it seems to me, "I think the Cancer Chemotherapy program is one of the best program components that the NCI has ever had."... One may ask parenthetically, surely this does not speak well of the "other program areas?"...

Frankly, I fail to follow you here. I submit that a program and series of the FDA-approved compounds that yield only 5-10% "effectiveness" can scarcely be described as "excellent, " the more so since it represents the total production of a thirty-year effort on the part of all of us in the cancer therapy field.(1)

There is little evidence for long-term survival with chemotherapy. Here is just a sampling of the negative verdict handed down by physicians, many of whom still continue to prescribe it:

Dr. B. Fisher, writing in the September 1968 issue of Annals of Surgery, stated:

As a result of its severe toxicity and its lack of therapeutic effect, further use of 5-FU as an adjuvant to breast surgery in the regimen employed is unwarranted.(2)

Dr. Saul A. Rosenberg, Associate Professor of Medicine and Radiology at Stanford University School of Medicine:

Worthwhile palliation is achieved in many patients. However, there will be the inevitable relapse of the malignant lymphoma, and, either because of drug resistance or drug intolerance, the disease will recur, requiring modifications of the chemotherapy program and eventually failure to control the disease process.(3)

Dr. Charles Moertal of the Mayo Clinic:

Our most effective regimens are fraught with risks and side-effects and practical problems; and after this price is paid by all the patients we have treated, only a small fraction are rewarded with a transient period of usually incomplete tumor regressions...

Our accepted and traditional curative efforts, therefore, yield a failure rate of 85%... Some patients with gastrointestinal cancer can have very long survival with no treatment whatsoever. [Emphasis added.](4)

1. Letter to Frank Rauscher, dated April 20,1973; Griffin, Private Papers, op. cit.
2. Surgical Adjuvant Chemotherapy in Cancer of the Breast: Results of A Decade of Cooperative Investigation," Annals of Surgery, 168, No. 3, Sept., 1968.
3. The Indications for Chemotherapy in the Lymphomas," Sixth National cancer Conference proceedings, op. cit.
4. Speech made at the National Cancer Institute Clinical Center Auditorium, May 18,1972.

Dr. Robert D. Sullivan, Department of Cancer Research at the Lahey Clinic Foundation:

There has been an enormous undertaking of cancer research to develop anti-cancer drugs for use in the management of neoplastic diseases in man. However, progress has been slow, and no chemical agents capable of inducing a general curative effect on disseminated forms of cancer have yet been developed.(1)

If it is true that Orthodox chemotherapy is,

1. toxic

2. immunosuppressant

3. carcinogenic

4. futile,

...then why would doctors continue to use it?

The answer is that they don't know what else to do. Patients usually are not scheduled into chemotherapy unless their condition seems so hopeless that the loss of life appears to be inevitable anyway. Some doctors refer to this stage, not as therapy, but experimentation, which, frankly, is a more honest description.

Another reason for using drugs in the treatment of cancer is that the doctor does not like to tell the patient there is no hope. In his own mind he knows there is none, but he also knows that the patient does not want to hear that and will seek another physician who will continue some kind of treatment, no matter how useless. So he solves the problem by continuing the treatment himself.

In his book The Wayward Cell, Cancer, Dr. Victor Richards made it clear that chemotherapy is used primarily just to keep the patient returning for treatment and to build his morale while he dies.

But there is more!

He said:

Nevertheless, chemotherapy serves an extremely valuable role in keeping patients oriented toward proper medical therapy, and prevents the feeling of being abandoned by the physician in patients with late and hopeless cancers. Judicious employment and screening of potentially useful drugs may also prevent the spread of cancer quackery.(2) [Emphasis added.]

1. "Ambulatory Arterial Infusion in the Treatment of Primary and Secondary Skin Cancer," Sixth National Cancer Conference proceedings, op. cit.
2. Victor Richards, The Wayward Cell, Cancer; Its Origins, Nature, and Treatment, (Berkeley: The University of California Press, 1972), pp. 215-16.

Heaven forbid that anyone should forsake the nauseating, pain-racking, cancer-spreading, admittedly ineffective "proven cures" for such "quackery" as Laetrile!

Here, at last, is revealed the true goal of much of the so-called "educational" programs of orthodox medicine - psychologically to condition people not to try any other forms of therapy. That is why they perpetuate the myth of "proven cures."

The American Cancer Society, in its Unproven Methods of Cancer Management, stated:

When one realizes that 1,500,000 Americans are alive today because they went to their doctors in time, and that the proven treatments of radiation and surgery are responsible for these cures, he is less likely to take a chance with a questionable practitioner or an unproven treatment.(1)

1. Unproven Methods of Cancer Management, op. cit., pp. 17,18.

Before leaving the subject of cancer therapy and moving on to the field of cancer research, let us clarify and summarize our findings so far. Here is a brief outline of the four optional modes of cancer therapy:

• SURGERY: Least harmful. Sometimes a life-saving, stop-gap measure. No evidence that patients who receive radical or extensive surgical options live any longer than those who receive the most conservative options, or, for that matter, those who receive none at all. Believed to increase the likelihood of disseminating cancer to other locations.
  
  When dealing with internal tumors affecting reproductive or vital organs, the statistical rate of long-term survival is, on the average, 10-15%. After metastasis, the statistical chances for long-term survival are close to zero.
   

• RADIOLOGY: Very harmful in many ways. Spreads the cancer and weakens the patient's resistance to other diseases. Serious and painful side-effects, including heart failure. No evidence that treated patients live any longer, on the average, than those not treated. Statistical rate of long-term survival after metastasis is close to zero.
   

• CHEMOTHERAPY: Also spreads the cancer through weakening of immunological defense mechanism plus general toxicity. Leaves patient susceptible to other diseases and infections, often leading to death from these causes. Extremely serious side-effects. No evidence that treated patients live any longer, on the average, than untreated patients. Statistical rate of long-term survival after metastasis is close to zero.
   

• VITAMIN THERAPY: Non-toxic. Side effects include increased appetite, weight gain, lowered blood pressure, increased hemoglobin and red-blood cell count. Eliminates or sharply reduces pain without narcotics. Builds up body's resistance to other diseases. Is a natural substance found in foods and is compatible with human biological experience. Destroys cancer cells while nourishing non-cancer cells.

Considering that most patients begin vitamin therapy only after they have been cut, burned, or poisoned by orthodox treatments and have been told that there no longer is any hope, the number of patients who have been brought back to normal health on a long-term survival basis (15%) is most encouraging.

For those who turn to vitamin therapy first, the long-term survival rate is greater than 80%| (See next chapter for statistical breakdown.)

Turning, at last, to the question of cancer research, we find that it is plagued with the same frustrations and self-induced failures as cancer therapy. Almost all current research projects are preoccupied with the question of how to cure cancer rather than what is cancer. Consequently, the basic problem of cancer research today remains one of fundamental rather than applied science.

The 1926, Thirteenth Edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica says this of cancer theories:

The very number and variety of hypotheses show that none are established. Most of them attempt to explain the growth but not the origin of the disease.

When applied to orthodox medicine, that statement is just as true today as it was in 1926. As a result, researchers have come up with an ever-lengthening list of things that supposedly "cause" cancer - everything from smog in the air to insecticides on our raw fruits and vegetables, to a multitude of obscure viruses.

Not recognizing that all of these merely act as trigger mechanisms for the real cause - an enzyme and vitamin deficiency - they then run off in all directions at once trying to find a thousand separate "cures," each designed specifically to filter out the smog, to eliminate the insecticide, to destroy the virus, and so on. The more they research, the more "causes" they discover, and the more hopeless becomes their task.

In spite of this continuum of failure, almost daily we can read in our press encouraging stories about how we are on the very brink of a cancer breakthrough. On September 23, 1972, the Los Angeles Herald-Examiner even announced to the world in bold front-page headlines: CANCER CURE FOUND!

And respected researchers from the nation's most prestigious medical institutions parade routinely before television cameras telling us how their latest findings have, at last, brought the solution to the cancer puzzle within their grasp. We have been "on the verge or great breakthrough" for decades!

The reason for this is simple. These men are the beneficiaries of research grants from the federal government, tax-exempt foundations, and the American Cancer Society. They must claim to be making encouraging progress or their funding will disappear. If they reported honestly that they have worked for over four decades, employed thousands of researchers, consumed millions of man-hours, and spent billions of dollars to produce nothing of consequence - well, one can imagine what would happen to the future funding of their research projects.

The cancer-research pie now is reaching out to the multi-billion-dollar mark annually. The ones who get the biggest slice of that pie are the ones who claim to be "on the verge of a great breakthrough," for who would want to be responsible for cutting funds just when the cure was so close?

In the meantime, researchers are busying themselves, not in trying to understand what cancer is, but in finding a substance or a treatment to get rid of it. And it seems that, the more wild the theory, the better chance it has of getting federal money.

When research grants are reported in the press, they often carry headlines that tell the whole story:

SEA SQUIRTS HELP SUPPRESS MICE CANCER, (L.A. Times)

EXPERTS HUNT MYSTERIOUS CANCER. AGENT, (LA. Times)

RAT POISON HELPS TERMINAL CANCER PATIENTS LIVE LONGER, CLAIMS TEAM OF DOCTORS, (National Enquirer)

WAITING IN THE WINGS?, (Medical World News).

This last headline perhaps needs expansion.

The article began:

On an educated hunch that insects synthesize compounds that can inhibit cell growth, chemist George R. Pettit of the University of Arizona in Tempe has spent six years and some $100,000 extracting chemicals from a quarter of a million butterflies ... part of a National Cancer Institute program. To get his ... butterflies, Dr. Pettit enlisted the help of 500 collectors in Taiwan.

And so the search goes on - rat poison, jet fuel, butterfly wings, sea squirts - everything except the natural foods of man.

It is significant that the only time orthodox research produces useful information is when it is in conformity with the trophoblast thesis of cancer. Or, stated another way, there is nothing in the realm of solid scientific knowledge gained through recent research that does not conform to the trophoblast thesis of cancer. This is true of a wide range of research projects.

For example, the excitement over the possibility of BCG acting as an anti-cancer agent is in conformity with the fact that the white blood cells are a front-line defense mechanism against cancer, as theorized by Dr. John Beard almost a century ago.

Dr. Robert Good, former president of the Sloan-Ketterine Institute, while previously serving as chairman of the Pathology Department of the University of Minnesota, discovered that altering the protein content of the diet in mice appears to have an effect on increasing their resistance to cancer.

He said:

"The work raises questions about the role of diet in human cancer."(1)

His studies were sparked after observing that the aborigines of Australia consumed a low protein diet and showed an excellent immunity to cancer. The good Doctor Good was on the right track, but it was a track he never followed. A low-protein diet cannot be patented.

Dr. J.N. Davis, Professor of Pathology at Albany Medical College, also stumbled across a part of the solution when he noticed that there was a staggering increase in cancer of the esophagus in Kenya, Africa, in recent years, while there was practically none in neighboring Uganda. He noticed, also, that there appears to be some kind of relationship between cancer of the colon and diet. H

e asked,

"Why should there be a low incidence of colon cancer in poor countries where food is scanty?"

For those familiar with the traditionally high nitriloside content of unrefined foods in poor countries, the answer is obvious. If Dr. Davis keeps asking the right questions, sooner or later he is bound to find the right answers. And then he will have the whole medical establishment to fight.

In the meantime, he has come to the conclusion that the reason for the difference may be found in the types of beer drunk in these two countries - which may not be too far off, for the different beers are made out of different grains such as maize, sorghum, and millet, all of which have varying concentrations of vitamin B17.(2)

1. "Protein Study - Diet Linked to Cancer Control," San Francisco Chronicle, October 21, 1971. Also, "American College of Surgeons, A New Cancer Link; Gene-Pool Pollution," Modern Medicine, Nov. 29,1971, p. 13.
2. See "Seek Clues to Dramatic Rise of Throat Cancer in Kenya," Infectious Diseases, July 2,1972.

But as long as Dr. Davis theorizes only about the beer and not the vitamin, he will retain the respect of his colleagues and probably will continue to receive funding for his research program.

And so it goes. Over and over again, the trophoblast thesis (fact) of cancer is confirmed by independent researchers who, unfortunately, have no inkling of the significance of their discoveries. Some of them, however, eventually do begin to grasp the picture.

Dr. Bruce Halstead, for instance, Director and founder of the World Life Research Institute of Colton, California, traveled to the Soviet Union and discovered that scientists there were studying natural non-toxic compounds as early as the 1960s and appeared to be way ahead of the United States in this field.

He spoke glowingly of one such compound called Eleuterococcus which, from his description, sounds suspiciously like pangamic acid or vitamin B15 discovered by Dr. Krebs.

At any rate, Dr. Halstead was unsuccessful in getting the FDA to approve experimentation with this compound.

He complained:

I've tried everywhere. I can't get any pharmaceutical company to support it because of the FDA's regulations which are for specifics. This is where the whole field of medicine is in conflict. Dr. Halstead also was on the right track, which undoubtedly is why he ran up against a stone wall of resistance from the Medical and Political Establishment.

 

After noting that Congress had just authorized 1.6 billion dollars for cancer research, he said that, in his opinion, it would not produce results because it all would be spent for research into exotic and toxic artificial drugs rather than in the investigation of natural non-toxic compounds.

Then he added:

I predict that cures for cancer can be expected out of the natural products field. Someday we'll discover that some native population had the cancer cure product and was using it. They may not have been using it intentionally for this reason, but we'll find out that they were using it, and the results were bona fide.

I believe that if we could really do a thorough study of all the natural occurring materials used by primitive tribes on a world scale, we (the U.S.) could become a highly-productive area of cancer research.(1)

1. "Russia, U.S. Join Ranks in Cancer Battle Project," L.A. Herald Examiner, Feb. 20,1972, p. A-18.

But this is not the approach of the cancer industry. Instead, infatuated with their newly acquired skills in creating artificial compounds, they scorn nature and plunge billions of tax dollars into their poisonous concoctions. And, as scores of these drugs are developed each year, cancer patients become the human guinea pigs upon which they are tested.

Not all testing is in an attempt to cure cancer. Much of it is done just because the researchers have at their disposal large numbers of patients who, as they reason, are going to die anyway, so why not use their bodies while they still have some life. If that sounds like too harsh a judgment, then consider the research project funded by the federal government at the Maryland Psychiatric Research Center in Cantonsville.

The project was headed by Dr. Stanislav Grof, a Czechoslovakian-born psychiatrist who specializes in the use of psychedelic drugs, particularly LSD.

The story here is so bizarre that many persons will find it hard to believe. So let us examine the eye-witness account of a special reporter to the Washington Post who visited the research center and observed video-tapes of some of the experiments. The reporter, by the way, was extremely sympathetic to the entire experimental program and presented it in the most favorable light possible.

But even in spite of this bias, the report is a shocking expose of the total disregard that these men have for the human "specimens" given to them for experimentation:

On the morning of his session, the patient is given a single red rose in a vase. The center's music therapist has selected a program intended to heighten the experience - Vivaldi, Beethoven, Bach, Wagner, Simon and Garfunkel, the Balinese Rarnazana Monkey Chant, and others...

Here is an example of one session preserved on video-tape:

The cancer patient, a laborer in his late forties who was depressed and afraid of his imminent death, was apprehensive as he sat on the couch talking with Grof and the nurse.

"It hurts so bad," he said in a choked voice. "I never cry, I mean I can't help it, but I've got to let it come out sooner or later."

He sobbed, and Grof comforted him.

The nurse injected him intravenously with a single high dose of LSD, and he waited the ten to thirty minutes for it to start to take effect.

When it did, he reacted with fear.

"I don't know what to do," he cried, and he moaned and eventually vomited into a pan... Grof soothed him with a few words then slipped a stereophonic headset over his ears. The patient was overcome with the mighty sound of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir singing "The Lord's Prayer."

He lay motionless...

After a long while the patient started uttering words:

"Like a ball of fire. Everything was dumped into this that I can remember. Everything was destroyed in a final way. It had all disappeared. I don't remember, but whoever it was said they was set free. Somebody was free. I don't know who it was. I don't know who it was, but he was free. Grof asked the patient if it was he who was set free, and the man replied, "Yes, yes."(1)

The next day the patient was convinced he had had a religious experience. The staff was pleased because, as they explained it, they had helped the patient find "meaning in his life and to enjoy his last months more fully."

Four days later, the man died from cancer.

It is shocking to learn that, under the code of ethics followed by the FDA and the medical profession it now controls, it is not necessary to advise a patient that he or she is being experimented upon. This is an ominous fact, not only in regard to the patient who is receiving the experimental drug, but also to the patient who expects medical help but instead is placed into the control group and, thus, receives placebos - no help at all.

Robert N. Veatch, a specialist in medical ethics, told a Senate Health Subcommittee in 1973 that, in just one typical research project, ninety-one children acting as controls in a study of treatment for asthma,

"received ineffective treatment for periods lasting up to fourteen years." He confirmed also that "no mother or child in the study knew any sort of study was underway."(2)

As of 1970, there were over 100,000 cancer patients who had been used in experiments without either their knowledge or consent.(3)

In a report prepared for the Chairman of a Senate Subcommittee, and published in the Congressional Record of October 5, 1966, Dr. Miles H. Robinson revealed:

An undetermined number of cancer patients with an otherwise substantial expectation of life have died in these tests, according to reports in NCI's Cancer Chemotherapy Reports. The full extent of mortality and morbidity is difficult to estimate, since the journal's editor told me only the "best" investigations are published.(4)

1. "LSD Therapy: Quiet Revolution in Medicine," LA. Times, Dec. 15,1972, Part VII, pp. 10,11.
2. "Unethical Experiments Hit," Prevention, July, 1973, p. 97.
3. Omar Garrison, The Dictocrats, (Chicago, London, Melbourne: Books for Today, Ltd., 1970), p. 271.
4. Ibid., p. 273

The following statements are taken from just a few of these "best" official Chemotherapy Reports:

An effort was made to choose patients who were well enough to withstand the anticipated toxicity... Unexpectedly, early death of two of the first five patients treated caused a reduction to 8.0 mg/kg/day. No significant anti-tumor benefit of any duration was observed...

 

In this study, six of the eight patients [children] died... No therapeutic effect was observed. Toxic clinical manifestations consisted of vomiting, hypotension, changes in oral mucus membranes, and diarrhea, in that order of frequency. Renal damage and cerebral edema were observed at postmortem examination in each of the six patients who died while receiving this drug...

The death of two patients was unequivocally caused by drug toxicity... Eight of the fourteen patients who survived their initial courses of therapy showed rapid general deterioration and died within ten weeks after therapy began. It was our opinion that drug toxicity contributed to the rapid demise of these patients...

Because of severe toxicity, which led to the death of a number of the forty patients initially treated with the full five-day "priming doses" used by the Wisconsin workers, investigators in the Eastern group voted to omit the fifth "priming" doses of each course.(1)

1. Ibid., pp. 273, 274.

It is a fact that many of these experiments are carried out, not to see if the drug is effective against cancer, but only to determine how much of it can be administered before the patient becomes ill from its toxic effect.

It is difficult for the average person to fathom the depth of these legalized tortures and murders committed on unsuspecting victims in the name of science. And it is a sad commentary that so many people in and near the medical profession accept them without protest.

It is insult added to injury when the FDA finances and encourages the wider use of these killer-drugs while at the same time forbidding doctors to experiment with Laetrile - which is known to be at least a thousand times less toxic - on the absurd contention that it has not yet been proven to be safe! None of the FDA-approved cancer drugs has been proven to be safe, and most of them, quite to the contrary, have been proven to be extremely unsafe.

And the American Cancer Society has the gall to label the use of Laetrile as "a new dimension of murder," when, in reality, it is they and their worthless, unproven nostrums that truly have earned that epithet.

Back to Contents