Chapter Twenty-Four
TO WALK THE HIGHEST WIRE

How doctors are intimidated into not using Laetrile; why the pharmaceutical industry seeks a patentable substitute for Laetrile; and the courageous stand against the FDA and AMA by Laetrile doctors.

Undoubtedly the FDA would be pleased if it could silence all public utterances on behalf of drugless and nutritional medicine. However, because it must at least pay lip service to freedom-ofspeech, it has had to settle for allowing people to talk all they want, so long as they are prohibited from offering the substances about which they speak.

Doctors and lecturers may advocate vitamin B17 from the rooftop, but if cancer victims cannot obtain apricot kernels, Aprikern, or Laetrile, then there is no threat to the status quo. Consequently, the FDA has allocated a large portion of its resources to harassing or destroying those who produce, distribute, or administer vitamin B17 for the control of cancer.

Doctors are particularly singled out for strong action for the obvious reason that, if many of them were allowed to use vitamin therapy without being chastised, it could result in opening the floodgates of medical acceptance. Each doctor that dares to resist, therefore, must be publicly destroyed as an example, seen and understood by other doctors, as what they, too, can expect if they should be foolish enough to follow suit.

This point came to light during the trial of Harvey Howard of Sylmar, California, who was prosecuted for selling Laetrile tablets to cancer patients. One of the witnesses for the state was Dr. Ralph Weilerstein of the California Department of Public Health. Dr. Weilerstein was asked if there were any "reputable" doctors who prescribed Laetrile.

Weilerstein answered:

"So far as I know, any doctor who has prescribed Laetrile in California since 1963 has been successfully prosecuted."(1)

So there we have it. Every doctor who has prescribed Laetrile has been prosecuted. Any doctor who is prosecuted cannot be "reputable." Therefore, no "reputable" doctor ever has prescribed Laetrile!

The dilemma facing a doctor, then, is this: Shall he follow his Hippocratic oath and his sense of moral obligation to do that which he honestly believes is best for his patient, or shall he abide by the rules laid down by politician-doctors on behalf of vested commercial and political interest? Human nature being what it is, some will follow the higher law. Most will not.

Dr. Ernst Krebs, Jr., himself a veteran of numerous legal battles with the FDA, in a letter dated March 9, 1971, warned physician John Richardson what would be in store for him if he became identified with Laetrile. Commenting on the pending publication of a magazine article written by Richardson, Dr. Krebs said:

It is only fair to emphasize, however, that once a physician has embarked upon such a path he is given no way to escape his printed words. These can have a devastatingly destructive effect upon his professional status, upon his wife and family, even upon his personal safety.

At a lecture at Sheraton-West in Los Angeles last Thursday, a sincere and obviously intense woman (whom I had previously met) arose during the question and answer period.

"I was a physician in the U.S.S.R., but I left for what I believed was a free country. But now I am told by the County [Medical] Society that, if I dare use Laetrile, they will get me and my license. I want to follow your work. What should I do?"

I replied,

"You have a great responsibility as a doctor in a society in which there is a great shortage of physicians. Forget Laetrile and do your very best where you are, and in doing this you may be much more effective than joining a battle for which you possibly are not prepared.

 

Trained in dialectical materialism as you were, you may smile at this. It is possible that the Lord has not touched your shoulder for service on this front. I know only that he has touched mine."(2)

1. "Sylmar Man Faces Trial on Cancer Quack Count," L.A. Times, Van Nuys section, Sept. 15,1972.
2. Letter from E.T. Krebs, Jr., to J.A. Richardson, M.D., dated March 9, 1971; Griffin, Private Papers, op. cit.

The reference to the possibility of danger to Dr. Richardson's personal safety was not made lightly or without justification. Elsewhere in this same letter Dr. Krebs explained:

As my secretary will tell you, since she was with me, five hours after presenting a rather effective lecture on cancer before an audience of about four hundred in Los Angeles, the windshield was shot out of my car on the road back to San Francisco. The next night the glass window in the tail gate was shot out (three hundred miles removed from the first shooting).

The police said,

"Maybe someone is trying to tell you something."

We do not want to dwell on the matter of physical violence, but the late Arthur T Harris, M.D., was threatened by two men with assassination if he continued to use Laetrile. Since that time we have decentralized the work so that, if any two of us are shot out of the saddle, it will have only a slightly negative effect on the program.(1)

It takes an unusual man to stand against pressures and threats of this kind. There are many who talk a good line about courage and standing on principle, but, when the chips are down and the opposition begins to play dirty, there are few who will persevere.

Dr. Krebs was one of those men. Even as a student doing postgraduate work at the university, he had been a strong advocate of the trophoblast thesis of cancer and had become conspicuous for his experimental work with vitamin B17. In a letter to the author dated September 23,1973, Dr. Krebs described the pressures that were brought to bear on him as a result:

I was assured by my academic mentors that if I refused to obey, conform, and be controlled - be a member of the Club - I would pass into oblivion. I would be denied academic recognition, degrees, jobs, institutions, etc.

My answer in the vernacular was for them to stuff the entire business, because we still had enough freedom in this country for me to go out to establish my own research foundation - The John Beard Memorial Foundation - under the despised doctrine of free enterprise.(2)

1. Ibid.
2. Letter from E.T. Krebs, Jr., to G. Edward Griffin dated Sept. 23, 1973; Griffin, Private Papers, op. cit.

The reader will recall from chapter two the amazing episode at the Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in Manhattan.

After Dr. Kanematsu Sugiura found that Laetrile was the most promising anti-cancer agent he had ever tested, his superiors launched a three-year campaign to discredit his findings. It was not easy to do. Each time a new test was run - even though they were designed to fail - either their fraudulent design was exposed or they confirmed Sugiura's findings in spite of the fraud.

It wasn't until 1977 that they finally engineered a test which showed that the untreated mice had a better response than those which were treated with Laetrile. Dr. Sugiura angrily pointed out that the control mice which were given saline solution supposedly had their tumors stop growing 40% of the time - which is an impossibility.

He wrote:

"We people in chemotherapy use saline solution because it does not affect tumor growth."

It was obvious that the test was invalid at best. More likely it was clumsily rigged. Nevertheless, the results were what Sloan-Kettering had been waiting for. They were not concerned about the integrity of their data.

The final report to the world was that "there is not a particle of scientific evidence to suggest that Laetrile possesses any anti-cancer properties at all."

Unfortunately, all of this was predictable. About four years prior to Sloan-Kettering's final report, this author wrote a short article entitled "A Scenario - Just for the Record."

Published in October of 1973, this is what it said:

Sloan-Kettering is, of course, the epitome of the orthodox Medical Establishment. With untold millions of dollars channelled through its facilities in the "War on Cancer," it would be embarrassing, to say the least, merely to end up serving the function of confirming what a handful of independent researchers, without a penny of tax money to support them, have been saying for over twenty years. A triumph by free enterprise of such magnitude simply must not be acknowledged by the Establishment which is so deeply committed to government subsidies, government programs, and government control.

Consequently, it is predictable that most of those in science and medicine who now are dependent on government directly or indirectly for support - and that includes Sloan-Kettering - now will struggle to find ways to:

(1) get on board the Laetrile train

(2) do so in such a way as to save face in spite of their incredible past error

(3) prevent those who have pioneered Laetrile from receiving the primary credit

While it always is dangerous to speculate about the future in precise terms, nevertheless, it seems probable that the Establishment scenario will be as follows:

LAETRILE IS NOT LAETRILE

Increasingly, the name Laetrile will be replaced by Amygdalin. Great attention will be given to the different kinds and sources of this substance.

TO WALK THE HIGHEST WIRE
The final product may even be combined with another substance which, supposedly, will increase the beneficial effect of the Amygdalin. The name of the final substance will not be Laetrile.(1)

TRIUMPH OF MAN OVER NATURE

In order to vindicate the scientific expense, the final product must appear to be a man-made substance. If any recognition at all is given to the natural mechanisms, it will be only in passing to the really "important" reactions effected by the man-made concoction.

 

We will be told that it was nature that gave us cancer in the first place, and that man, as a result of his infinite intellect and industry, has in fact improved upon nature. Those who developed and pioneered Laetrile will be mentioned only as early researchers who had stumbled across a small part of the total answer.

GOVERNMENT VINDICATED

Perhaps the most important objective of Establishment Medicine is to preserve or bolster the sagging image of government. Government direction, control, and ultimately government monopoly in the field of medicine must be sold to the American people at all costs.

 

Consequently, we most likely will be told over and over again how a cure for cancer - that most dread disease - has, at last, been found as a result of the federal government's "War on Cancer." We will be told that the task was much too large to be undertaken by private research; that only government could have done it, not in the name of profit, but in the name of all mankind.

 

In fact, it may develop that the credit will be given to an international effort carried on jointly between several governments (most likely the United States and the Soviet Union acting through the World Health Organization of the U.N.) and, thus, be used as a means of generating increased public support of, not just government, but international government, as well.

PROFIT

It long has been the policy of large industries to operate in such a way as to reduce competition between them so as to realize the greatest possible level of profits... The chemical and pharmaceutical industries are well known to have been consistent participants in restraint-of-trade and cartel agreements.(2)

1. There are minor differences in the molecular arrangements of Laetrile and amygdalin compounds. Nevertheless, the word Laetrile is generally used to denote those special compounds that have been developed for cancer therapy, and not to refer to them as such is to cloud the basic issue in the public mind.
2. Committee for Freedom-of-Choice Newsletter, October 1973.

After describing the Standard Oil agreement with I.G. Farben on the hydrogenation process referred to in a previous chapter, the article continued:

As it was with the hydrogenation process, so it is with Laetrile. For two decades Laetrile has been viewed as competition which must be eliminated.

But now that it is obvious it cannot be eliminated, the move is to,

"obtain therefrom such benefits as we can, and assure the distribution of the products in question through our [the cartel's] existing marketing facilities."

We can look forward to the prospects of having Laetrile mass-produced either under the name Amygdalin or in conjunction with some man-made compound under an entirely different name, and then distributed through existing channels of prescription drugs.

There will be little or no price competition in such distribution and, although the actual price will not seem unreasonable considering the benefits derived, there will be an overly ample profit margin to the manufacturers. Above all, however, it will not be regarded as a nutritional factor or as a vitamin, and, thus, the general prestige and sales market for drugs will not be endangered.

The present drive of Establishment Medicine against vitamins consequently can continue without hindrance.

All of this is part of the anticipated scenario which begins with the tests of Sloan-Kettering. Will it turn out this way? Of course, only time will tell. Perhaps even this prediction, if read by enough people, could set into motion a series of events that would cause it not to come to pass. As a matter of fact, that is the very reason the prediction is being made. It is axiomatic that deception cannot be successful if the person to be deceived is warned in advance.

By making it clear beforehand what is expected, it is this author's hope either to thwart the deceivers altogether, or at least to force them to seek an alternate course which either will be less harmful or more obvious.(1)

In December of the following year, 1974, the first edition of World without Cancer was published. The Sloan-Kettering trials were just beginning to be publicized. On page 471 of that edition, this further prediction was made:

At the time of this writing, sources inside Sloan Kettering have said that a third round of clinical trials with Laetrile has been just as promising - if not more so - than the first. We are told that those in charge of the project are hesitant to discuss the matter publicly until the entire series of tests is complete, and that they are hoping to announce the effectiveness of Laetrile just as soon as they have enough data to satisfy all the skeptics.

This sounds like a reasonable course of action, but we will not hold our breath waiting - especially since those tests could well be stretched out over many months or even years.(2)

1. Ibid.
2. They ran on for three more years.

Let us hope that those inside Sloan-Kettering will be successful in resisting the pressures from above, but we must be pardoned for postponing our celebrations until completion of the deed.(1)

1. G. Edward Griffin, World without Cancer: The Story of Vitamin B17 (Westlake Village, CA: American Media, 1974), First edition, p. 471.

Little was it realized, when these words were published, how accurate they would become.

This author was informed by a reliable source close to Sloan-Kettering that the publication of these predictions had caused a stir among the top officials there. They sent out the word that a "softer" approach would make it easier for them to "move in our direction," and that a continuation of the "hard line" could only delay the ultimate acceptance of Laetrile.

It was suggested that Dr. Lloyd Old, in charge of the project at Sloan-Kettering, really was convinced of the trophoblast thesis and was anxious to help, but that this hard-line talk about vested interests, cartels, and political corruption was making his superiors - and their superiors - increasingly touchy about the matter.

If true, this was a serious admission. Here were professional researchers charged with the grave responsibility of finding a means to stop the annual cancer slaughter. The lives of millions were hanging on the outcome of their work. Yet, they were saying that bad public relations or the presence of a "hard line" could induce them to abandon or bury a research project which, by their own admission, was extremely promising!

There are those who feel that it makes little difference who receives the credit for solving the cancer problem as long as it is solved and people are no longer dying. But it does make a difference. It makes a big difference if the people given the credit are the very ones who were responsible for its hindrance. It does make a difference if those who earn the medical prizes are the ones who, by their ignorance, arrogance, or subservience, held back the truth for over three decades.

And it makes a substantial difference if those who claim the privilege of political leadership are those whose policies have caused so much suffering and death among their fellow citizens that it can be classified only as mass-murder. The difference it makes, in other words, is that the future must not be entrusted to those who have betrayed the past.

The Sloan-Kettering episode was merely another confirmation that there are few within the medical profession who are able to stand against the crushing pressures for conformity.

Returning to the letter of counsel to Dr. Richardson, Krebs wrote:

Cancer is where the action is. The innocents who touch Laetrile experience a traumatic syndrome unparalleled in American life. This is why we so strongly counsel many fine and dedicated doctors to refrain. Of course, every society always has a few who cannot live fully without walking the highest wire in the tent.(1)

1. Letter from E.T. Krebs to J.A. Richardson, M.D., dated March 9,1971; Griffin, Private Papers, op. cit.

Dr. Richardson appreciated this caution from a man who had already walked the wire, but he had climbed to the top of the tent himself. Now that he knew from his own experience that Laetrile worked, there was no turning back.

John Richardson was no stranger to unpopular causes. As a member of The John Birch Society, he already had sampled the bitter taste of attacks in the Establishment press. He knew that, while most people will agree that "you can't believe a thing you read in the papers," nevertheless, they do believe almost everything that is printed

The Birch Society had been telling the American people that there was little difference between Communism, Fascism, Nazism, Socialism, New Dealism, or any other "ism" based on the concept of big government. It had advanced the argument that the solution to most of the world's problems lay in the reduction of the size of government. In so doing, it had taken aim at the mainspring of the cartel's mechanism for profit and power.

Opposition may be tolerated if directed to lesser parts of the mechanism, such as "Communist subversion," or "corruption in public office," or "high taxes," or "deficit spending." But let an organization take aim at the prime mover behind all of these manifestations - the concept of big government itself - and it will know the wrath of the cartel finpols, the Communists, the neo-Nazis, the faceless bureaucratic elite, and all other would-be masters of the American people.

Each of these may vie with each other for relative rank and power within the planned world government, but they close ranks against a common enemy who has the audacity to advocate - and to work for - a reduction in the size and power of government.

Consequently, Dr. Richardson was well informed about the the nature of the forces arrayed against him. While others in the Laetrile movement tried to "enlighten" the FDA to its error in hopes that it would change its position, he knew they were wasting their time.

While others circulated petitions requesting the FDA to grant permission for further testing of Laetrile, he said:

"Get the FDA out of it altogether."

While others were stunned at the blatantly unfair treatment given to them by the TV producers at NBC, he was surprised only that it wasn't worse. And while others instructed their attorneys to find some legal technicality to avoid a full confrontation with the law, Dr. Richardson sought ways to test the constitutionality of the law itself.

Dr. Richardson was arrested on June 2, 1972, for violating the California FDA's "anti-quackery" law - which means that he was charged with using Laetrile in the treatment of cancer. Armed officials burst into his office and, in the presence of patients (as well as news photographers whom the FDA had tipped off to cover the arrest), they handcuffed him and his two nurses and hauled them off to jail like dangerous criminals.

The office was ransacked and Dr. Richardson's personal files and correspondence were seized. Patients in need of medical treatment were sent home. One child with advanced cancer of the leg died shortly afterward. It is possible that the death could have been prevented had it not been for the interruption of treatment and the child's psychological trauma resulting from the raid.

Dr. Richardson's legal battle for medical freedom was long and costly. In May of 1974, after two years of litigation and two trials - both of which resulted in hung juries - the judge advised the food and drug authorities that they had failed to prove their case and that, consequently, all charges against Dr. Richardson were dismissed.

The battle, however, was not over. Thwarted in court, the California FDA began to contact Richardson's patients hoping to find one or two who were not satisfied with their treatment. The plan was to convince them to instigate law suites against the doctor - with the government covering all the legal costs.

Most doctors have dissatisfied patients who would be interested in this kind of an offer. Doctor Richardson, however, was not one of them. Every patient contacted told the government agents to go fly a kite. Finally, the father of one patient, Dorothy Soroka, was recruited for this purpose. He had been telling his daughter all along that Laetrile was quackery. The law suit was dropped, however, when Dorothy herself was called to testify.

Not only did she staunchly defend her treatment but, much to the chagrin of the prosecutors, her health had continued to improve.(1)

1. Richardson and Griffin, Laetrile Case Histories, op. cit, p. 81.

The action against the Richardson Clinic up until that time had been carried out by the California FDA. After they had struck out for the third time, it was time for the federal FDA to step in.

Dr. Richardson describes what happened next:

In February of 1975, United States marshals in Minnesota, Alabama, Washington, Wisconsin, and Oregon seized shipments of Laetrile to patients who had come to our clinic and who since had returned to their homes to continue therapy on a maintenance level.

 

I knew then that the primary purpose of such seizures was to prove that my shipments had crossed state lines which, theoretically, put me into interstate commerce and, thus, under the regulatory authority of the federal government. I soon learned, however, that there was another purpose behind this action as well. It was to mire me in a tar pit of legal requirements.

From each state where Laetrile had been seized, I received subpoenas to appear in those states to defend myself against a laundry list of charges for alleged crimes. It was required that I retain a separate attorney in each state, that I travel to each for trial, and that I participate in endless hearings and interrogatories. It was a lawyer's paradise but, for me, a nightmare.

 

I couldn't afford it either in money or time. I was, after all, only one man against the forces of the federal government and the state governments combined. They literally have high-rise office buildings filled with lawyers and agents living at taxpayers' expense. Money and time are no object to them.

At about this same time, the IRS moved into my office and began pouring over my books, determined to find errors and discrepancies. We had paid heavily for our 1971-72 audit previously. Now a completely arbitrary and unjust assessment of $19,000 was made against me for 1973, without benefit of audit. I contested this and the IRS agreed before appropriate witnesses that I could place the questioned sum in escrow pending a tax-court hearing.

 

My position was vindicated a year later when, after a thorough review, I actually received a $1,800 refund for overpayment of 1973 taxes. In the meantime, however, Dennis Connover from the IRS Collection Division ignored our prior agreement and became determined to deliver the killing blow. I was threatened with a lien against my home and I had come to within just ten days of the date on which it was to be issued.

The federal noose was tightening, and for the first time I began to think that I had been beaten.(1)

It took several more years for the story to play out but, in the end, Dr. Richardson's premonition was correct. In 1976, he was scheduled to testify before the California Legislative Health Committee on behalf of a bill to legalize Laetrile. As he approached the hearing room, he was seized by plainclothes agents, handcuffed, and hauled off to jail.

That was the beginning of a lengthy federal trial on charges of "conspiracy" to smuggle Laetrile.

The doctor had never been involved with smuggling but he had purchased Laetrile from suppliers who could not prove they had imported the substance legally. Since he didn't ask his suppliers to produce import papers, it was alleged that he must have known the medication was smuggled. Therefore, when he purchased the Laetrile for his patients, he was said to have "conspired" with the smugglers. The government eventually obtained a conviction on the basis of this astounding reasoning.

While this trial was being conducted, the FDA sent the following letter to the California Board of Medical Examiners:

The FDA charges that Dr. Richardson has been and is engaged in conduct prohibited by law, unfounded in science, and without medical justification. We submit that such conduct is unethical and unprofessional, particularly so when it furthers the distribution of a remedy that has no established value, the promotion of which is fraud on the public.

 

We call the Board's particular attention to the unresponsible and dangerous advice on the treatment of cancer in which Dr. Richardson urges patients to delay surgery and to avoid radiation treatment in favor of treatment with Laetrile. This advice, if followed, has an obvious potential for disastrous consequences.

For these reasons, the Food and Drug Administration respectfully urges that this Board revoke Dr. Richardson's license to practice medicine.(2)

1. Richardson and Griffin, op. cit., pp. 85,86
2. Letter dated July 22, 1975, signed by Carl M. Leventhal, M.D., Deputy Director, for J. Richard Cront, M.D., Director, Bureau of Drugs, FDA; Griffin, Private Papers, op. cit.

The hearings before the Board of Medical Examiners in San Francisco were scheduled to be held concurrently with the trial in San Diego for "conspiracy" to smuggle. Both actions were orchestrated by the FDA.

Since Dr. J. Richard Cront was required to be in court, it was impossible for him to attend the hearings to defend himself. It likely would have made little difference if he had. The hearings were like Stalin's show trials.

The results had been decreed; only the process remained.

On October 28, 1976, the Board issued its decision:

Respondent utilized Laetrile and Pangamic Acid [vitamin B15] as therapeutic agents in the treatment of cancer. Laetrile and Pangamic Acid are not recognized vitamins in human nutrition. Laetrile has no known nutritional value and is unsafe for self-medication...

The management of cancer patients with Laetrile, Pangamic Acid, and vitamins, as prescribed by respondent, as the sole treatment of choice by the physician, to the exclusion of the aforementioned conventional modalities is an extreme departure from the standard practice of medicine...

Certificate number G-2848 of John A. Richardson, M.D., respondent above-named, is revoked.(1)

1. "Decision in the matter of the accusation against John A. Richardson, M.D., before the Board of Medical Quality Assurance, Division of Medical Quality for the State of California," Oct. 28,1976, pp. 4, 5,11.

Dr. Richardson eventually closed his thriving practice in Albany, California, and affiliated with a well-known clinic in Tijuana, Mexico, where he was able to continue treating cancer patients - and saving lives. He passed away in December of 1988.

There are many other courageous men who have walked the highest wire.

• Dr. Ernst Krebs, the co-discoverer of Laetrile, was sent to prison for providing Pangamic Acid (vitamin B15) as an adjunctive therapy in the treatment of cancer.

• Dr. James Privitera, M.D., from Covina, California, served time in prison for an alleged "conspiracy to sell Laetrile."

• Dr. Bruce Halstead, M.D., from Loma Linda, California, another Laetrile advocate, lost his medical license for using the "unproven" herbal called ADS (Aqua Del Sol) as an enhancement to the immune system.

• Dr. Douglas Brodie from Reno, Nevada, another Laetrile specialist, served time in prison, allegedly for "income-tax evasion."

• And then there is Dr. Philip Binzel, M.D., from Washington Court House, Ohio, who was featured in a previous chapter.

Although at the time of this writing he has not lost his license or served time in prison, he has spent a major portion of the last decade of his life in court fighting the cancer industry. The battle never ends.

The details of this sordid record of injustice have been included in the previous passages in the hope that they will allow the reader to experience some of the frustration and rage that these doctors have felt.

Dr. Richardson summed it up this way:

The average person, secure in his home and livelihood, never having felt the crushing attack of literally hundreds of tax-supported lawyers, unthreatened by a prison sentence for merely doing what he knows is right, such a person simply cannot understand the logic of a wounded bear...

When Nazi war criminals were accused of genocide, they defended themselves on the basis that they were just following orders and obeying the laws of the Nazi state.

 

The civilized world cried out: "Guilty!"

 

Man is expected to respond to a higher law than that of any state. When the laws of one's government require a man to condemn innocent people to death, he must reject those laws and stand with his conscience. If he does not, then he is no different from the Nazis who were hanged for war crimes.

In the present battle, we do not even have the passion of war to justify our behavior. Yet, in the last few years more people have died needlessly of cancer than all the casualties of all our wars put together.

How much suffering and death are the American people willing to take before they stand up to the bureaucracy? How many physicians must be put into prison before all physicians cry "enough!" to the increasing government control over their profession? How many Watergates do we need before we realize that mortal men are corrupted by power, and that the solutions to one's problems lie not in increasing the power of government but in decreasing it?

The spirit of resistance is in the air. It is a refreshing breeze, and it gives me great hope. I have resolved to stand alone if need be. But, as I write these final words, I can't help but wonder, is there any one else out there?(1)

1. Richardson and Griffin, op. cit., pp. 114,115.
 

Back to Contents