Chapter Twenty-Two
THE ARSENAL OF COMPLIANCE

Government harassment of the nutrition and vitamin industry; the role of the media in discrediting Laetrile in the public mind; and a comparison of the cost of Laetrile therapy with that of orthodox cancer treatments.

As touched upon briefly in the preceding chapter, one of the principal weapons in the FDA's arsenal of compliance is the press release and the pre-arranged news coverage of raids and arrests. Trial by public opinion can have far more consequence than trial by jury. The defendant, even if innocent of the charges against him - or, more likely, even if guilty of the charges per se but innocent of any real wrong-doing - will forever carry the stigma of suspected guilt in the eyes of the public.

Basically, this is the rationale behind the "cyanide scare" publicity given to Laetrile and apricot kernels. The honest scientific verdict is that these substances are more safe than most over-the-counter drugs. Yet, the public knows only that they have been labeled as "dangerous," and that those who promote their use are not to be trusted.

The media have been eager to cooperate in this venture. The reason is not that the major news outlets are controlled by the same finpols who dominate the federal government - true though that may be - it merely is due to the fact that newsmen, like almost everyone else, do not like to work more than they have to and, consequently, are inclined to accept ready-made stories with a minimum of independent research - plus the fact that most of them have never had any reason to question the expertise or the integrity of FDA spokesmen. In other words, like the rest of the population, most newsmen still have a lot to learn about the inherent qualities of big government.

The result of this reality is that the press and electronic media have, for all practical purposes, become the propaganda arm of the FDA.

Serving in this capacity, they become an inexhaustible source of slanted or biased news stories, of which the following are typical:

Mrs. Mary Whelchel had operated a boarding house on the American side of the Mexican boundary near San Diego for the use of cancer patients under the care of Dr. Contreras. To her it was more of a mercy mission than it was a commercial enterprise. Yet, in February of 1971, she was arrested and thrown in jail because she had provided Laetrile for her boarders.

Shortly after her release, Mrs. Whelchel wrote an open letter for publication in the Cancer News Journal.

 

Here, in her own words, is what happened:

Dear Friends,

Most of you will know by the time this letter reaches you that on Feb. 25, 1971 at 12:30 P.M., Charles Duggie (California Food and Drug Officer), Fred Vogt (San Diego D.A. Office), Frances Holway (San Diego police matron), and John McDonald (Imperial Beach Police) came to my home and arrested me for "selling, giving away and distributing" Laetrile as a CURE for cancer.

I was also accused of spreading "propaganda" to people to get them to go to Mexican doctors instead of their medical advisors in the States... I was told they had papers to "search and seize" and that I was under arrest. They proceeded to go through my house like a tornado. Everything was removed from my files, desk and shelves, including checks, personal letters, receipts and books. One word covers it - EVERYTHING!

Finally, at 4:00 P.M. I was taken to the county jail to be booked and mugged... I was put in the "drunk tank," and there I stayed...

As I sat in that horrible jail and looked around at the four barren walls, and the drunks, prostitutes, dope addicts - plus it had no windows, and mattresses were thrown helter-skelter on the floor - I had time to reflect over the past eight years. At first I asked myself: "How and why did I get here?" I was panic stricken! For a person who has never broken the law, outside of a traffic ticket or two, in a lifetime - here I was in jail!

It is terribly frightening. You are cut completely off from civilization it seems. No way to contact a soul! Other than the call to my sons, I had no way of knowing if anything was being done to get me out. I was not allowed to talk to anyone but the inmates. Most of them were too drunk or high to understand a word. As time passed (there are no clocks) and no word came from the outside, I felt like the forgotten man; in my case, the forgotten woman!

I believe in Laetrile wholeheartedly. I believe with all my heart that it is the answer to the control of cancer. After living twenty-four hours a day for eight years with cancer patients, how could there be a single doubt? I came up with my answer.

 

Yes, it has been worth every minute of it, and regardless of how the trial comes out, I want to say now, for the record, I would do the same thing, the very same thing all over again.(1)

For comparison, let us see how this incident was treated in the press. All across the country, newspapers picked up the story as it first had been planted in The New York Times. Headlines screamed: CANCER CLINIC RING SEIZED IN CALIFORNIA.

The public was led to believe that the FDA had launched a daring raid on one of the most dangerous and despicable criminals of the twentieth century smuggling "illicit drugs" into the country and preying upon innocent, helpless, and desperate cancer victims.

It said:

California food and drug agents moved this week to break up what they described as an "underground railroad" that has been transporting cancer victims into Mexico for treatment with a drug that is banned in the United States and Canada.

Charges of criminal conspiracy and fraud were lodged against Mrs. Mary C. Whelchel whose boarding house has been a haven for cancer patients from all parts of the United States en route to Mexico for treatment with the so-called wonder drug...

The Mexican authorities are also looking into the operation of the cancer clinics.(2)

1. Cancer News Journal, Jan./Apr., 1971, p. 14.
2. "Cancer Clinic Ring Seized in California," New York Times Service, The Arizona Republic, Feb. 28, 1971, p. 24-A.

"CLINIC RING," indeed!

Most local police departments are pushovers for the FDA quacks. They usually accept FDA pronouncements at face value. Consequently, they can be counted on to cooperate fully in any investigation or arrest. Sometimes, a police investigator, without realizing that he has been deceived by FDA propaganda, concludes that Laetrile "smugglers" are really no different from dope pushers dealing in heroin. When such lawmen are interviewed by the press, they become highly quotable and helpful to the FDA.

The following news article from the Seattle Post-Intelligence is a classic example:

Bellevue - At least five Washington residents including two doctors have been linked with sales of an illegal anti-cancer drug known as Laetrile, a result of a month long investigation by Bellevue police, the P-I has learned.

Detectives conducting the probe yesterday said they may have only scratched the surface of a drug sales operation covering several states and Mexico...

Two motives appear to exist for those advocating Laetrile, according to Bellevue detective Bill Ellis, heading the investigation.

"Some of those involved may believe that the drug actually works to cure or halt the progress of cancer," Ellis said.

 

"But we can't rule out the profit motive," he added. "There is a lot of money to be made selling this drug."...

 

"Every indication is that patients are required to stay on the drug for life," Ellis said. "This makes an ideal situation for a bunco artist, preying on desperate people who feel they have nothing to lose."

Police also are concerned that those touting Laetrile for the profit motive may find it just as lucrative and as simple to import other drugs including heroin.

"If a person can successfully smuggle one illegal drug into the U.S. in substantial quantities, what is to prevent them from diversifying," Ellis posed.(1)

The heavy hand of FDA propaganda is evident in this "news" story, and it is likely that neither detective Ellis nor the reporter are aware that they had become victimized by real bunco artists of the first order.

Aside from the innuendo about Laetrile advocates "possibly" smuggling heroin (there never has been even a shred of evidence to justify that suspicion), one of the favorite PDA lines is that those who distribute Laetrile are making exorbitant profits.

The California Department of Public Health, in its publication The Cancer Law, claimed that essentially the same material as Laetrile could be purchased much cheaper under the commercial name of Amygdalin, and the American Cancer Society has said that Laetrile used in an injection costs only ten to fifteen cents.(2)

1. "Five Linked to sale of Illegal Cancer Drug," Seattle Post-Intelligence, Dec. 21, 1972, pp. 1, 5.
2. ACS quoted in "Cancer Relief or Quackery?" Washington Post, May 26,1974, pp.Cl, C4.

Let us examine the facts. The cost to an American physician for one gram of injectible Laetrile in 1974 (the time of this allegation) was approximately $4, and the cost to the patient was between $9 and $16 - which made it just about the cheapest injection in the doctor's office.

Perhaps the biggest factor influencing the price of Laetrile, however, is that the government has made it illegal to use as an anti-cancer agent. This has forced the source of supply into a black-market operation which, because of the need for secrecy and the possibility of arrest, fines, or imprisonment, always inflates the price of a commodity to cover the expense of smuggling and to compensate for the risk. If the government would remove its legal restraints, Laetrile could be manufactured and sold in the United States by mass-production techniques which, in a short time, would bring its price down to less than one-third of its present level.

And speaking of exorbitant costs and profits, why doesn't the FDA concern itself over these matters within the field of orthodox medicine?

In an article in the San Francisco Chronicle entitled "Beware the Quick Cancer Cure," Dr. Ralph Weilerstein of the California FDA's Advisory Council expressed shock and concern over the fact that a typical thirty-day Laetrile treatment in Mexico may cost a patient between one-thousand and two-thousand dollars. In truth, most cancer patients would be very happy to have such a reasonable medical bill.

Actually, even these reasonable estimates were exaggerated. As Time magazine reported in 1971:

Contreras' claims for Laetrile [in Mexico] are as modest as his fees. The doctor charges only $10 for a first visit, $7 for subsequent visits, $3 for a gram of the drug.(1)

1. "Debate Over Laetrile," Time, April 12,1971.

According to Dr. Contreras, his total medical charges in the early 1970s seldom exceeded seven hundred to a thousand dollars.

Most of his patients were from out of the country, however, and so they also had to pay for lodging, meals, and transportation. The total expense, including these non-medical extras, occasionally did run as high as two-thousand dollars, but it was unfair to imply that it was all going into the doctor's pocket as pure profit.

If Dr. Weilerstein wanted to compare apples with apples, he might have explained why a terminal cancer patient undergoing orthodox therapy in the United States in the early 1970s would spend, on the average, thirteen-thousand dollars on surgery, radiology, chemotherapy, hospitalization, or a combination of them all. If the FDA really wants to get into the business of expressing shock and concern over high medical costs, orthodox therapy is virgin territory still awaiting exploration.

Establishment newspapers and magazines have been reliable and unquestioning outlets for FDA propaganda. So, too, have the major networks and most of the local radio and TV stations. A perfect example was NBC's "First Tuesday" program broadcast on March 2, 1971.

To those viewers who knew none of the background, this program probably appeared to be an objective documentary. Ed Delaney, the program's host, did have filmed interviews of people representing both sides of the controversy. But, as is so often the case, the opinion of the viewer was manipulated by careful selection and film editing of who was allowed to say what, and in what sequence.

There were hundreds of cancer patients seeking the services of Dr. Contreras's clinic every day. They came from all age groups, all walks of life, and from all educational backgrounds. Yet, NBC interviewed only those patients who were relatively inarticulate or who would appear to be ignorant, confused, and desperate. None of them were allowed to tell of any help they might have received from Laetrile, so the resulting impression was that no one actually had benefited.

Then came the lengthy "rebuttal" - organized and polished interviews with Dr. Jesse Steinfeld, the Surgeon General of the United States, Dr. Charles Edwards, head of the FDA, and other "highly respectable" establishment physicians.

The overwhelming conclusion was that "Laetrile may sound fine in theory, but it just doesn't work!"

The Laetrile advocates who had trustingly cooperated with NBC in the preparation of the program were stunned. They had been led to believe that they would be given a fair hearing before the court of public opinion, but from the beginning, they never had a chance.

Under the label of "public-service broadcasting," the nation's TV stations have aired literally thousands of anti-nutrition propaganda films at no charge to their sponsors. The AMA's film called Medicine Man, for example, portrays health lecturers as pitch men and crooks, and it cleverly instructs the viewer how to spot their "techniques."

The film puts all health lecturers into one bag - the good and the bad together - and makes blanket condemnations that are justified when applied to the bad but unjustified when applied to the good. The result is that the viewer is programmed to react negatively against all of them, and because he is looking for "techniques" rather than "substance," he is conditioned to reject the responsible health lecturer along with the irresponsible.

To him, all health lecturers are charlatans because they all use some of the same "techniques" as those used in the film. It does not occur to him that the same techniques are used by all lecturers - including those who lecture against health lecturers!

Another propaganda film with a similar approach was produced by the American Cancer Society and is called Journey Into Darkness. Featuring guest star Robert Ryan as the host, the film is a masterpiece of scripting and acting.

Weaving several stories into one, it portrays the mental torture experienced by several cancer victims as they grapple with having to decide whether they should take the advice of their wise and kindly doctor and pursue proven orthodox treatments, or allow their fears and doubts to overcome their judgment and seek the unproven treatments of a medically untrained quack who promises miracle cures but whose only real interest is in how much money the patient can afford to pay. In the end, some make the "right" choice and resolve to follow the guidance of their doctor.

Others make the "wrong" choice and begin their long and tragic journey into darkness.

To the uninformed, this film is convincing. Because they know that cancer quackery does exist, they are misled into accepting that anything not approved by the ACS automatically falls into that category. They do not stop to realize that the people they watched on the screen were merely actors, that the story was not real, or that the script was written in conformity with the propaganda objectives of the FDA.

Nevertheless, this film has been shown as a "public service" on hundreds of TV stations and in thousands of classrooms, service clubs, and fraternal, charitable, and civic organizations, producing a profound impact on public opinion. So convincing is the message that countless viewers who later contract cancer will not even listen to the Laetrile story - even if their physician tells them there no longer is any hope under orthodox treatment.

As a sidelight, it is ironic to note that actor Robert Ryan, star of Journey Into Darkness, fell victim to his own propaganda. He died of cancer in July of 1973 after undergoing extensive cobalt therapy. His wife, Jessica, died of cancer one year previously.

While the press release, the manipulated news story, and the one-sided use of radio and TV constitute some of the most frequently used weapons in the FDA's "arsenal of compliance," there are many others that are even more effective. They are reserved for those tough customers who cannot or will not be stopped by mere public opinion.

One of these is the destruction of an individual's credit rating. It is standard practice for the FDA to write or phone Dun & Bradstreet to advise them of one's "difficulty with the government."

A notice to Better Business Bureau also is customary.

The next escalatory step of harassment is to stop the publication or distribution of all printed matter, including books and pamphlets. The book, One Answer to Cancer, written by Dr. William Kelly, was legally blocked because it advocated diet rather than orthodox therapy The court ruled that distribution of the book would constitute a clear and present danger to the general public and that the government's duty to protect the health and welfare of its citizens supersedes the doctor's constitutional right of free speech. Since Dr. Kelly was a dentist rather than an M.D., he also was accused of "practicing medicine without a license."

This is a favorite FDA ploy. Many health writers and lecturers have been arrested on just such an excuse. If a man prescribes a change in diet as a means of eliminating simple headache, he is practicing medicine without a license. If he suggests that you take vitamin C or bioflavonoids for a cold, he is practicing medicine without a license.

If he recommends fruit or natural roughage for bowel regularity, he is practicing medicine without a license.(1)

1. When this passage was written for the first edition of this book in 1974, orthodox medicine was still scoffing at those "health nuts" who claimed that roughage was important to proper intestinal function. By the mid 1980s, however, this concept had became quite orthodox. There is no telling how many thousands of colon cancers could have been avoided if the medical gurus had listened instead of smirked.

If he suggests that natural substances to be found in nature's foods can be an effective control for cancer, he certainly is practicing medicine without a license. But let a drug firm hire an actor to go on TV and proclaim to the millions that Bayer is good for headache, that Vicks is good for a cold, that Exlax is good for regularity, or that orthodox medicine can cure 40% of all cancers, and never will one FDA eyebrow be raised.

In order to avoid the appearance of being "book burners," FDA officials have claimed that they are censuring books, not because of the ideas they advocate but because the books actually are being used as sophisticated "labels" for products.

They may not have any jurisdiction over ideas, but they do have total control over products. So, if the author, publisher, distributor, or seller of the book also should happen to have a product to sell that in any way is explained or promoted in the book - which is a logical thing for them to do - then the book and the product are seized by the FDA because of false or deceptive labeling.

Denied access to the printed page, many nutrition-oriented writers take to the lecture hall. Here, too, they are stopped. They can be arrested either for practicing medicine without a license or - especially if they have a product to sell - false labeling.

One such case was that of Mr. Bruce Butt, an elderly gentleman who was arrested for showing a pro-Laetrile film in Carlisle, Pennsylvania.

Two-and-a-half years later, all charges against Mr. Butt were dismissed in court, but not until he had been forced to suffer gigantic legal fees, and after the publicity had branded him in the public mind as a "health-food nut," a "crackpot," and a cancer quack."

If the object of FDA harassment is still alive and kicking after all of this, then there is yet one more weapon in the government's arsenal of compliance that surely will drop him in his tracks: Cut off his mail! The Post Office, after all, is just another branch of the same federal machinery, and it will honor, without question, any FDA administrative or court ruling to the effect that a publication or product is "not in the public interest."

On the basis of this glib phrase, numerous health books and their advertising have been banned from the mail.

The Cardiac Society, for example, had earned FDA displeasure by selling vitamin E as a means of raising funds to carry on its work to educate the public about the relationship between vitamin E and a healthy heart. Incoming mail to the organization's headquarters was intercepted by the Post Office and returned to the sender marked "fraudulent!" Charles C. Johnson, Jr., Administrator of the Environmental Health Service, the agency which, for a while, supervised the activities of the FDA, has summed up the present attitude of government officials when he said:

"We have a variety of tools in our arsenal of compliance."(1)

1. Garrison, The Dictocrats, op. cit., p. 50.

The phrase "arsenal of compliance" tells us a great deal about the mentality of the hardened bureaucrat and, as we have seen, it is a perfect description of what the average citizen now must face when he challenges the government that he has so blandly - perhaps even approvingly - watched grow over the years. In the name of "protecting the people" - in the field of nutrition as in all other fields of human activity - it rapidly is becoming the greatest threatening force from which the people now need protecting.
 

Back to Contents