Chapter Twenty-Five
A QUESTION OF MOTIVES

What has motivated the opposition to Laetrile therapy; the "limited" vs. "total" conspiracy theories; and the grass-roots backlash as a force for change.

"Who are they John? Why would anyone want to hold back a cure for cancer?"

It was that question addressed to Dr. John Richardson in 1971 that led this author into what turned out to be a two-and-a-half year research and writing project.

This lengthy tome is the result of that effort, and over half of its pages have been devoted to an attempt to answer that question of motives. It is time, now, to draw this information together and come to specific conclusions.

As emphasized many times during the course of this study, the majority of those in the medical, pharmaceutical, research, and fund-raising industries are conscientious individuals who are dedicated to their work. It is their conviction that what they are doing, as channeled within the confines of "the system," is in the best interest of mankind.

This is particularly true of the typical physician who has received little training in nutrition, has never heard of the trophoblast thesis of cancer, never has had a chance to use Laetrile, never has read a favorable review of vitamin therapy in accepted medical journals, and never has had any reason to question the reliability of the "experts" who claim to have done the research. The very worst that can be said about these men and women is that they are biased against vitamin therapy.

But bias is is not unique to this group. It probably is true that there never has been a truly unbiased man. We all are biased in favor of those things we believe to be true. It is a myth that, somehow, scientists are less biased than artists, businessmen, or politicians. They may be expert at pretending objectivity, for that is the expected image of their profession, but they are just as closed-minded on just as many topics as the rest of us - no more, no less.

Their bias against vitamin therapy is understandable. It may be deplorable, but it is not sinister.

Moving down the list of motives, we come next to what might be called "careerism." The careerist is not a bad guy either, but he does suffer from a strong vested interest which often gets in the way of objectivity.

It was described aptly by columnist Charles McCabe:

You might be wondering if the personnel of the American Cancer Society, of cancer research foundations, and other sainted organizations, are truly interested in a cure for cancer. Or whether they would like the problem which supports them to continue to exist. You might even grow so base as to believe that there is a certain personality type which is deeply attracted to exploitable causes. They might be called the true blue careerists.

 

I recently had this type defined for me with admirable succinctness:

"The crucial concept is that of a careerist, an individual who converts a public problem into a personal career and rescues himself from obscurity, penury, or desperation. These men work with a dedication that may appear to be selfless so long as the problem is insoluble.

"Should proposals for change in public policy or the normal evolution of our culture threaten resolution of the mess, it becomes apparent that they have a vested interest in maintaining the magnitude and emotional load of the problem..."

This strange and dangerous kind of reformer has always been with us.

 

The type has gained a truly formidable acceptance in our time. These are the guys who know the answers for problems which do not, at the moment, have any convenient answers. They resist like hell the approach of any real answer which might threaten their holy selflessness.(1)

1. "The Fearless Spectator," San Francisco Chronicle, Sept. 27,1971, p. 35.

It is natural for the careerist to gravitate into such apparently humanitarian organizations as the American Cancer Society. Not only does this provide him with the aura of status among his approving friends, but it also provides some pretty nice employment in a low-pressure field devoid of competition or of the economic necessity to show either a profit or even tangible results.

In fact, it is the very lack of results that adds stature to his position and importance to his work. In this cushy atmosphere, the careerist leisurely dreams up endless schemes for raising funds. Sailors line up on the deck of an aircraft carrier to be photographed from the air as they spell out "Fight Cancer."

Public buildings everywhere display posters bearing the slogan "Fight Cancer With a Check-up and a Check."

Housewives are recruited to hold rummage sales and to go from door to door raising funds. Athletes are urged to participate in special sporting events. Employees are pressured to authorize donations through payroll deductions. Service clubs are persuaded to sponsor information booths, carnivals, and movie-mobiles.

And relatives of deceased cancer victims are encouraged to have obituaries state "the family prefers contributions to the American Cancer Society."

In this way, the careerist is able to enlist the services of over two-million volunteers each year who, in turn, collect about one-hundred-million dollars. Of this amount, only about one-fourth goes into research. None of it goes into the investigation of possible nutritional factors, because once that door is opened, the final solution to the cancer problem would walk right into those plush offices, stand on the deep-pile carpet, and announce that the American Cancer Society, and those who work for it, are no longer needed.

And, thus, would be fulfilled the promise contained in this official ACS statement:

The American Cancer Society is an emergency organization, a temporary organization, seeking in its independent Crusade to obtain enough dollars to wage an unrelenting fight against cancer.(1)

1. "American Cancer Society, Inc." ACS booklet, n.d., p. 17.

Perhaps that was a Freudian slip, but notice that it did not say that the objective was to defeat cancer, but merely to fight cancer. Unless cancer is defeated, the fight could go on forever.

The American Cancer Society has been an "emergency organization, a temporary organization" since 1913!

The foot prints of the careerist are evident everywhere. Careerism has been an important factor in the opposition to vitamin therapy - not just in the field of cancer, but in multiple sclerosis, muscular dystrophy, and other non-infectious diseases as well. It is equally certain, however, that this opposition has not been the result of conscious, premeditated malice.

Rather, it has been the product of the subconscious need which characterizes the careerist personality. We are still dealing with men and women who basically are innocent of evil intent.

As we move down the list of motives into the next category, however, the shading clearly begins to take on the hue of grey.

The category is profit.

Profit, per se, is neither good nor bad. It depends on the circumstances under which it is earned. Profit is merely another word for "pay." It is the compensation received by an individual in return for risking his savings or investing his time in a business venture. Profits, therefore, like other forms of pay, are good if they are earned in such a way that no one is coerced or cheated.

So long as there is complete freedom-of-choice to buy or not to buy, or to buy from another source, and so long as all voluntary agreements between buyer and seller, lender and borrower, are fulfilled honestly, then the profits that result are fair - regardless of their size.

But if any party to the transaction is coerced into terms or prices he would not otherwise accept, or if his options to take his business elsewhere have been limited by conspiracy or any other forces outside of free-market competition, then the profits that result, no matter how small, are unfair because they have been garnered by force or deceit. It makes little difference if these acts are imposed by government, trade associations, labor unions, cartels, or organized crime syndicates.

Obtaining money through coercion or deception is the essence of theft. And it is this kind of profit that is next on our list.

It is the policy of multi-national companies to operate in such a way as to reduce competition between themselves for the purpose of limiting consumer options, pushing prices above the natural level dictated by supply and demand, and, thus, realizing an artificially high level of profits. Such arrangements between companies are called restraint-of-trade agreements.

The chemical and pharmaceutical industries are well-known to have been the pioneers of and leading participants in restraint-of-trade. Much of the opposition to non-drug therapy in cancer can be understood only in light of this reality.

Price-fixing in the field of drugs shows itself in many ways. One of them is that some drugs manufactured in the United States are sold cheaper in other countries. To lower the prices in America, even though the drugs are produced here, would violate price-support agreements.

As pointed out by Senator Gaylord Nelson, Chairman of the Senate Small Business Subcommittee on Monopoly:

Yes, many American drug companies sell drugs to domestic wholesalers at different prices, depending on where the drug is to be used. If the domestic wholesaler states that the drug will be shipped overseas, his price may well be fifty percent lower. It would be hard to find a more glaring case of price discrimination against the American consumer than this one.(1)

Artificially inflated prices are not the only byproduct of cartel agreements.

Scarcity of product selection, or no product at all, can be even worse. We are not speaking of merely limiting the number of manufacturers for a given product within a particular territory - although that is bad enough - but of holding a new product off the market completely so as to exploit an existing product that is more profitable. This appears to have been the rationale behind the Standard Oil-Shell decision to de-emphasize its hydrogenation process by which it can make high-grade gasoline from low-grade coal.

In the field of medicine, it was this same manipulation of markets that led to the unconscionable delay in the use of sulfa.

Richard Sasuly comments:

I.G.Farben sometimes held back new products or methods. The sulfa drugs are a case in point... There were American cartel partners of the I.G. who were willing to rest on what looked like assured markets and therefore held back new developments...

I.G.had been holding back from the public of the whole world a great life-saver because it wanted a product which it could patent and hold exclusively... It is difficult and painful to try to estimate the number of lives which might have been saved if sulfanilamide had not been buried in the laboratories of a vast monopoly which had been trying to pick its own most profitable time for granting new medicines to the public.(2)

1. "Ask Them Yourself," Family Weekly, News Chronicle, Oct. 7,1973, p. 1
2. Sasuly, I.G. Farben, op. cit., pp. 134,135, 32.

The super-profits of the drug and research industries are greatly enhanced by the rising toll of cancer.

A substantial portion of the income for these industries now is channeled through the federal government and winds up in the pockets of politically favored individuals and institutions.

With the federal cancer budget running over one-and-a-half billion dollars a year, the potential for corruption is enormous.

"Who needs the primitive old-fashioned form of graft in government," asks Dr. Krebs, "when a division of HEW can aseptically award Hoffman-LaRoche with a $1,250,000 contract for 5-FU 'clinical investigation' of this drug when, without patent protection, the same amount of the chemical could be produced for about Sl7,000?"(1)

1. Letter from E.T. Krebs to G. Edward Griffin dated Dec. 26, 1972; Griffin, Private Papers, op. cit.

We now have arrived at a fourth and still lower stratum of motives, a stratum that must not be overlooked if we are to understand those forces acting against freedom-of-choice in cancer therapy.

There are those with political ambitions who will seize upon any excuse for the expansion of their influence and power over others. The cancer crisis is tailor-made for their agenda. While they may have had no part in creating that crisis, nevertheless, their professed interest in solving it is largely a sham and a ploy to win approval of the voters and to further secure themselves in the structure of governmental power.

As government becomes more onerous and oppressive, it needs public-relations tidbits to mollify its restless citizens.

If a despised dictatorship could hold off public knowledge of vitamin B17 until after it had funded billions for research in a much ballyhooed "war on cancer," and if the final solution to the cancer problem could be sold to the people as a "victory" in that war, then the masses would be further conditioned to accept government as the logical agent in the field of medicine and even might be persuaded to view their dictatorship with gratitude.

"Big brother may be harsh," they will say, "but he is good!"

There is much to be learned in this regard by observing the pattern of Hitler's rise to power.

Encouraged by the cartels in the background, the German parliament had expanded Bismarck's plan of government medical care until it became an important part of life in pre-Nazi Germany.

Matthew Lynch and Stanley Raphael, in their scholarly study, Medicine and the State, tell us:

Although it is difficult to estimate with any precision how great a role this [socialist] network played in assisting the Nazi rise to power, there can be little doubt that it was a considerable one. The administration of social insurance reached into every corner of the country, and at least 70 per cent of its personnel belonged to the ADGB [German General Trade Union Congress] which was taken over by the Nazis.

 

The whole social insurance structure, and its sickness division in particular, was a natural, ready-made network for the spread of Nazi influence and control.(1)

Socialized medicine's value to the success of Nazism also was recognized by the Canadian parliament's committee on health insurance.

In a special report issued in March of that year, the committee stated bluntly:

During the early years of Hitler's regime, the government's medical program was looked upon by many observers as one of the greatest props of the totalitarian state.(2)

1. Lynch and Raphael, Medicine and the State, (originally published 1963 by Charles C. Thomas. Reprinted by Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, Oak Brook, 111., 1973), p. 34.
2. Report of the Advisory Committee on Health Insurance, March 16, 1943, (King's Printer, Ottawa), p. 108.

Following in the footsteps of Bismarck and Hitler, American leaders from both major political parties have been competing with each other for leadership in the expansion of Medicare. Thus, every four years, we move closer and closer to a system of medicine advocated and practiced by all totalitarian regimes.

The American people have been slow to embrace government medicine, especially since they have been able to see the disastrous consequences of similar programs in other countries. But their resistance has been weakened by the rising costs of medical care, most of which can be attributed directly to the fantastic costs of orthodox cancer therapy.

In other words, if an inexpensive control for cancer were to be made available today, the nation's medical bill would be so drastically reduced that tomorrow there would be little steam left in the boiler for government intervention in this vital field. The politician and the bureaucrat may speak with concern over the rising costs of medical care, but secretly they are delighted, because this provides them with a cause celebre, a justification for their expansionist proposals.

The Honorable John G. Schmitz, former Congressman from California, in a special report to his constituents dated October 27, 1971, offered this analysis:

Very early in this year's Congressional session, Senator Edward Kennedy introduced with enormous fanfare a bill (S.34) grandiloquently entitled "The Conquest of Cancer Act. " Its formula for conquering cancer was very simple, if a bit shopworn: set up a new Federal bureau with lots of money.

Assuming - quite correctly, as it turned out - that opposition to the "Conquest of Cancer Act" would promptly be labelled as tantamount to being in favor of cancer, President Nixon got in line with his own "Conquest of Cancer Act," differing in no essential respect from Senator Kennedy's bill but carrying a different number (S. 1828). This bill passed the Senate by the lopsided vote of 70 to 1.

The "railroad" was on, and the American Cancer Society, in full-page advertisements in the New York Times and the two major Washington papers, had the unmitigated gall to state that "objections to the bill have come mainly from people who do not have expert cancer knowledge." My files bulge with statements from some of the outstanding scientists, physicians, and cancer researchers in the United States opposing the Kennedy-Nixon grandstand play, including one signed by no less than four Nobel prize winners in medicine...

Another sprawling bureaucracy is not going to find either cause or cure any faster. More likely, it will actually hamper the search for them by "locking in" the present preconceptions and biases of researchers specializing strictly in this field.

The quantity of tax dollars squandered on blind-alley cancer-research projects is staggering.

Americans will tolerate any absurdity, it seems, so long as it is promoted as an attempt to resolve some "crisis." The "crisis" in Vietnam, the "crisis" in the Middle-East, the ecology "crisis," the energy "crisis," - the list is limited only by the imagination of the manipulators and the gullibility of the manipulated. Each crisis is built up in the public mind as a prelude to our willing acceptance of still further encroachment upon our pocketbooks and our liberties.

In August of 1973, President Nixon announced a five-year plan in the battle against cancer. Reminiscent of the classical Soviet approach to such problems, this really was an announcement that the "crisis" had become institutionalized. It was a guarantee that the goals would not be achieved. Since then, each failure has resulted in revised goals, a greatly expanded bureaucracy, and another five-year plan.

As Congressman Schmitz observed, "The railroad is on," and it is a gravy train in the grand political tradition.

Government control over scientific research almost never produces usable results, except in the field of military weapons and related hardware such as rockets. The reason is that this is the only field in which government has a primary interest. It is a question of an instinct for self-survival. Governments, like living creatures, have this instinct and, sometimes, that causes them to view even their own citizens as "the enemy."

 Which is the reason governments withhold so much information from the public, even in peacetime, supposedly for reasons of "national security." National security implies the presence of an enemy. The ruling elite know that, if the voters had access to classified information, there likely would be a revolution - or at least a change of leadership. To them, the enemy is us.

Those who feel that government should direct non-military scientific projects, such as the quest for cancer control, should ponder the significance of a report in the Los Angeles Times of December 6,1972.

After describing the massive undertaking of an international cancer-research program (the IARC) - a joint venture of the governments of the United States, the Soviet Union, France, Britain, West Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium, Australia, and Japan - the article stated that the agency had acquired a new six-million-dollar headquarters building in Lyon, France.

Then it explained:

Now, seven years after its founding, and two weeks after moving into a new fourteen story headquarters building in Lyon, the agency feels it has come to terms with its own personality.(1)

1. "Cancer Control Inquiry Reaches Around World," L.A. Times, Dec. 6, 1972, p. A-2.

After seven years of research, after the expenditure of untold millions of tax dollars from eleven countries, and after taking occupancy of a six-million-dollar, fourteen-story building, all that this government project can show for results is the exciting discovery that "it has come to terms with its own personality."

Such are the fruits of government trees in the orchard of nonmilitary science.

Daily, the collar of government control tightens around our necks. We are told what foods we may or may not eat, what vitamins we may purchase and in what potency or combinations, what medical treatments we may seek, whom we may hire, what we must pay, what prices we may charge, to whom we must sell, where our children must go to school, what they must learn, and soon we are to be told what physician to see and what drugs to take.

Each of these insults to our individuality has been inspired by a series of national or international "crises." The end result is that there now is a crisis more serious than all the others put together. It is a crisis of personal freedom.

The people of the United States, as well as those in every other country in the world, are traveling the road to bondage. They are following the pied piper of big government playing the beguiling tunes of security, brotherhood, and equality. At the end of that road lies the cage of a world totalitarian regime deceptively decorated for now as an international democratic forum where men of good will can come together in the cause of peace.

The UN is the special creation of the same international groupings that comprise the world's hidden cartel structure.

The role played in the United States by the Rockefeller group and the Council on Foreign Relations has been chronicled in a previous chapter. However, it should be realized that, for over five decades, the only consistent and firmly pursued foreign policy objective of the State Department (staffed almost exclusively by members of the CFR) has been to hasten the evolution of the UN into a true world government and to bring about the subordination to it of all nations - including the United States.

On the assertion that national sovereignty is the cause of war, the Grand Design of US foreign policy has been to eliminate all such sovereignty by transferring control of the world's military might - including nuclear weapons - into the hands of UN politicians. Under the slogan of disarmament for peace, the wheels now are in motion to create a world political entity controlled by the international finpols who created it.

With possession of all nuclear weapons, that super-state would be so powerful that no man and no disarmed nation-state could resist its edicts.(1)

1. For a more detailed analysis of this question, the reader is referred to three previous works by the author: The Fearful Master; A Second Look at the United Nations (Appleton, WI: Western Islands, 1964), The Grand Design; An Overview of U.S. Foreign Policy (Westlake Village, CA: American Media, 1968), and The Capitalist Conspiracy; An Inside View of International Banking (Westlake Village, CA: American Media, 1971). The last two items are also available as videos.

It is impossible to understand US foreign policy without this knowledge. Everything done by present leaders of the United States since World War II conforms to this goal. Everything!

However, before it would be possible to merge the United States with the rest of world, it would be necessary to bring their economies and standards of living into line. That means massive foreign aid to the less developed nations to bring them up, and all kinds of wasteful spending, exhausting wars, and productivity-crippling restrictions to bring the United States down.

The subject of foreign policy is relevant to the politics of cancer. Just as it was learned years after the fact that the American space program was deliberately held back at the highest levels in Washington to give the Soviets the prestige of putting up the first artificial satellite (which brought their scientific and military credibility up in the eyes of the world and provided justification for American disarmament concessions), it also is possible that the same motivation is partially responsible for holding back a control for cancer.

American political leaders are anxious to have the cure for cancer come either from another country or as a result of international effort. Their desire is that the ultimate victory will be achieved in such a way as, not to enhance the prestige of the United States, but to further the concept of internationalism and global government.

In January, 1972, CFR member and former candidate for president, Hubert Humphrey, put it this way:

There is rich precedent for making the U.N. our forum. We used it to get the treaty that prohibits putting weapons in outer space. And the one that does the same for the seabed. Now we hope to get an international agreement on the environment there. Why not also for the global war on cancer? Should diplomats be the only ones to talk in the U.N. about war, arms control, and peace treaties? Why can't doctors talk there, too, about ways of enlisting all mankind in advancing scientific medicine?(1)

An article from UPI dated February 1, 1972, reported that President Nixon (CFR member) had ordered his top cancer officials to work closely with other nations, particularly the Soviet Union and the Peoples Republic of China.

The article stated:

"Nixon stressed that he wanted the anti-cancer campaign to be an international effort."(2)

1. "We Must Pool the World's Anti-Cancer Resources," Hubert H. Humphrey, Family Weekly, Jan. 23, 1972, p. 14.
2. "World Cancer Battle Waged," UPI, The Daily Review, Hayward, Calif., Feb. 1, 1972.

In September of that same year, President Nixon addressed the National Cancer Conference at the Biltmore Hotel in Los Angeles.

During his speech, he stressed that cancer research was one of the main forces through which peoples of the world can "work for peace." To the globalists in the CFR, the concept of "peace" is a synonym for international alliance and global government.

Nixon explained:

Perhaps the fight against cancer can help to teach the world that, despite immense differences between cultures and values and political systems, nations must work together to meet their common needs. Like drug abuse, like hijacking, like terrorism, cancer is an international menace. We must confront it with an international alliance.(1)

At the risk of becoming redundant, it should be stated once again that big government is the necessary ally of monopoly, and world government is the goal of the cartelists and finpols who are the quiet, seemingly philanthropic sponsors of the U.N.

The fact that most Americans are unaware of this fact or that they are sincere in their hopes for international peace and brotherhood does not alter that reality. Everything the cartels and multinational companies do is in furtherance of one or both of their two objectives: the creation of greater wealth for those who control them; and the coalescing of political power into a true world government - with themselves in control from behind the scenes.

Anthony Sampson in his book The Sovereign State of ITT, touched upon this phenomenon when he wrote:

That multinational companies need a more effective control is accepted by many of their own employees. But who can control them? The conventional remedy is for the nations to organize themselves into greater units, and eventually into some kind of world government, in order to limit the abuses; the multinational enterprises would thus stimulate world society through a contained process of conflict.(2)

1. "Cancer War A Force for Peace - Nixon," LA. Herald Examiner, Sept. 28,1972, p.l.
2. Sampson, The Sovereign State of ITT, op. cit., pp. 304, 305.

Charles Levinson, secretary-general of the International Federation of Chemical and General Workers' Union in Geneva, learned about the cartel from years of first-hand knowledge and confrontation, and he tells it like it is.

This is how he told it to the Wall Street Journal as published on June 17,1974:

Geneva - When the United Nations held hearings here late last year on the problems posed by multinational companies, officials assumed that one of the star witnesses would be trade unionist Charles Levinson.

After all, they reasoned, he is a prolific author on the topic, passionately eager to challenge the multinationals and articulately at home in the spotlight. Besides, he lives just up the hill from the Palais des Nations hearing room.

But Mr. Levinson declined the invitation to testify - for reasons that went something like this:

"One, I'm not a clown. Two, I'm not a member of the Atlantic Council. Three, I don't fornicate with the foundations."

Instead of seeking truth, Mr. Levinson says, the UN officials wanted "clowns" to perform in a forum carefully contrived to make the UN look alive while giving the multinationals a protective coat of whitewash.

 

In Mr. Levinson's view, the UN and such prestigious private groups as the Washington-based Atlantic Council and the Rockefeller Foundation are all parts of an international elite that manages much of the world's business, finance, politics, and even wars, to its own advantage...

Does that mean Mr. Levinson is out to destroy the multinationals?

"No, no, no, absolutely not," he says. "You cannot be against multinationals as such. It isn't possible." There is "no possibility of a modern enterprise functioning in today's world" unless it attains a global scale, he says.

Nor does his avowed socialism mean he would like to see all the giants nationalized someday.

"I am no longer in support of the collectivization of the means of production according to classical Marxist concept," he states.

 

In fact, he adds, "I am afraid of extensive nationalization.

 

"It would only concentrate more power in the hands of authoritarian right-wing regimes ... while in eastern Europe state ownership has meant "merely replacing one group of elitists with another."

What Mr. Levinson does want goes beyond ordinary bread-and-butter unionism to what he depicts as a last chance to preserve a measure of human freedom against a capitalist-Communist conspiracy...

As things look from his austere office in a luxury building, companies are "authoritarian" and increasingly interlocked.

"Look at that chart on the wall," Mr. Levinson says with a gesture.

The pale-blue paper bears the names of the world's 50 largest chemical companies, listed both horizontally and vertically with black dots to show the joint ventures they have with one another.

"I stopped doing them," he says. "That thing would have become black." Among the major petroleum companies, "I counted 2,000 joint ventures" before stopping, he says, and he estimates that they probably have 10,000. Before long, he predicts, all modern industries will be "completely controlled and dominated by a handful of multinational companies, all interlinked, all joint-ventured, all financially integrated in the same banking consortia."...

To a large extent, he says, the power is "centered within David. Rockefeller's operation."

 

This sphere encompasses, he charges, not only the Chase Manhattan Bank, which Mr. Rockefeller chairs, but also the big oil companies, Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and many corporations that Mr. Levinson sees as linked through foundations in two ways: The corporations' executives run the foundations, and the foundations own shares of the corporations.(1)

1. "How One Man Helps Unions Match Wits With Multinationals," by Richard R Janssen, Wall Street Journal, June 17,1974.

Many people have been so sheltered from the hard economic and political realities of the world that they find it almost impossible to believe that such worthy endeavors as world peace or cancer research have been twisted to serve the private agenda of a few.

The thought of conspiracy hiding behind the mask of humanitarianism is repugnant to their minds and alien to their experience. Europeans tend to be more alert to this possibility, for their political history is so filled with conspiracies that they look upon them more as the rule than as the exception. Americans, however, have not had this historical experience, and the average citizen is vulnerable because of it.

Judging only by his own standards, he cannot believe that there are men who would sacrifice the lives of others for the advancement of their own positions. Perhaps in other countries, yes, but not in America. It is as though the casting of his personal ballot somehow has sanctified his candidates and made them incapable of selfish motives or foul deeds.

Consequently, many people instinctively back away from any thought of there being a conscious direction behind the opposition to Laetrile and prefer to believe that all is ignorance and bureaucratic bungling.

It is possible to view the long history of harassment as just that. But that same argument is also offered as an excuse in all the other problem areas of society. We are told that inflation is not planned; it just happens because of ignorance and bureaucratic bungling. Price controls and rationing are not planned either; they are merely the unfortunate consequences of ignorance and bureaucratic bungling.

The growing rolls of welfare recipients are not planned; they merely are the result of fallacious idealism and bureaucratic bungling. Rising crime is not planned but is just the result of short-sighted judicial philosophy and bureaucratic bungling. The energy crisis is not the result of conspiracy but of conflicts in the Middle-East and bureaucratic bungling.

The exhaustion of the nation's resources in no-win wars and so-called international peace-keeping actions is not the result of design but merely a lack of clear foreign policy objectives and bureaucratic bungling. The ever-increasing rules, regulations subsidies, and restraints connected with every phase of our lives - none of this is planned, you understand; it is just the accidental outcome of ignorance at all levels of society and, of course, bureaucratic bungling.

It might be possible to accept that any one, or two, or even a dozen of these tragedies are not planned, but when all the pieces are fitted together like a giant jig-saw puzzle, a pattern emerges that is obscured when only one or two pieces are seen at a time. The design is so clear, so uniform, and so universal that it defies all rationality to think that its existence is mere coincidence.

The pattern, simply stated, is this: In every one of these problem areas, the only tangible and consistent product of all the effort and expenditure is the growth of government.

Furthermore, the very people who stand to benefit most from this trend, either financially or politically, always are in the forefront of the effort to convince others that such growth of government is necessary. And thirdly, these recipients of power are not ignorant, either of historical perspective or of current realities.

From their point of view, they are not bungling the job.

Let us acknowledge that it is not necessary for political and industrial leaders to consciously seek the suffering of millions in order for that to be the result of their schemes. A man may pursue his business with such intensity and single mindedness that both his family and health suffer greatly. In the end, he may lose his wife and even his life, but that was not his goal.

Likewise, men of finance and politics do not have to be members of a global cabal to decide to oppose Laetrile or vitamin therapy; and it is certain that they do not consciously seek to commit genocide by thwarting a line of research that they know will lead to life-saving discoveries. What has happened in this field is the result of forces and policies previously set in motion in the quest of economic and political goals.

Their organizations and institutions react reflexively against any obstacle to profits. The result is a scientific quagmire which now is claiming millions Of lives each year. The fact that, occasionally, one of them at the top also is drawn into that quagmire - as for instance when Winthrop Rockefeller died of cancer in 1973 - is small consolation indeed.

The fact that some of the top financial and political leaders of the world have died of cancer is strong evidence to support the conclusion that much of the opposition to Laetrile in the past has been more a result of general rather than specific conflicts of interest. It is important to understand, therefore, that many of those who, for financial or political reasons, have opposed the development of Laetrile have not done so with any desire to cause suffering and death.

Their single, all-consuming drive has been to expand their financial and political power. And anything that gets in the way must be destroyed.

Laetrile got in the way. First, the nutritional concept upon which it rests is anathema to the drug industry. Second, the fact that it is a product of free-enterprise was an affront to the bureaucracy of big government. Third, the final solution to the cancer problem surely will terminate the gigantic cancer-research industry, most of the radio-therapy industry, and much of the surgery now being performed.

Loss of revenue in these fields would be catastrophic to thousands of professional fund-raisers, researchers, and technicians. And fourth, the elimination of cancer from the national medical bill would reduce the cost of medical care each year so drastically that much of the current political pressure for socialized medicine would evaporate.

Yes, Laetrile definitely got in the way.

These reflections lead inexorably to the conclusion that, while there may not be a specific conspiracy to hold back a control for cancer, there definitely is a general conspiracy which produces those results just the same.

Ferdinand Lundberg, in his The Rich and the Super-Rich, approached the subject this way:

Actually, the results at both the top and the bottom are contrived. They are the outcome of pertinacious planning... In any event, overeager members of the financial elite have been caught and convicted in American courts of many literal sub-conspiracies, so that even in the narrow juristic sense many of them stand forth individually as certified simon-pure conspirators.

 

Consequently, even if there is not a single all-embracing conspiracy in juristic terms, it is a fact that there are and have been hundreds of adjudicated single conspiracies. The conspiracy theory, then, has a little more to it than honors-bound academics concede.(1)

1. Lundberg, The Rich and the Super Rich, op. cit., pp. 21, 327.

Dr. Ernst T. Krebs, Jr., writing to Dr. John Richardson in 1971, stated:

The view of the "limited conspiracy" is something with which we all can live. This holds that government has unwittingly been used as a tool in behalf of powerful special interests. Those of us who live with the view of the "limited conspiracy" treat it as something as real as the air we breathe...

When you witness our so-called leaders in Washington no longer even making a pretense at moral behavior but accepting the insults of truth with indifference, one finds the conspiratorial theory quite plausible. It would seem that only men who are acting on orders under a plan would continue to flaunt their corrupt practices before the world. Such men can have no real concern or interest in the welfare of their country, which they openly degrade... (1)

1. Letters from E.T. Krebs, Jr., to J.A. Richardson, dated March 9 and August 3, 1971; Griffin, Private Papers, op. cit.

To better understand the limited or specific conspiracy in the field of cancer, let us imagine a tall cylinder.

The cylinder represents a conglomerate of interests, some competing, some overlapping, some in a state of change. All of them, however, are bound together by the mutual desire to enhance personal wealth and power by using the force of government to eliminate competition. There are many strata within that cylinder. In fact, almost every level of human activity is represented: banking, commerce, industry, medicine, education, law, politics, to name just a few.

What we have done in this study is merely to examine one slice out of that cylinder. We have reached into the broad stratum of medicine and removed only one thin cross-section marked cancer. Unfortunately, what we have exposed there can be duplicated at any level if only we could spare the time to look.

The reality, therefore, is that there is both a specific or limited conspiracy and a general or all-encompassing one.

In the field of cancer, as in all other fields, the primary, conscious motives of those who conspire are not to create suffering, servitude, or death, but to further their own wealth and power. None but a few of the most ruthless at the top ever stop to consider the consequences of their acts. Most are swept along by the momentum of their own institutions. They either go along and are rewarded or they drop away and are crushed.

Thus, the conspiracy becomes as a living, self-propagating organism.

Parasitically, it grows and feeds upon those who are not part of it. It saps our freedoms and the fruits of our labor through the sucking tentacles of government. It must be stopped before it destroys its host. What force could be strong enough to break the fatal grip? Is there anything that can rip away this parasite before it is too late?

There is. It is the force of public opinion. Even dictatorships tremble at its spectre for, once aroused and rallied behind valiant leadership, there is no political or military power on earth that can match it.

Already there is a growing backlash at the grass-roots level. With thousands of cancer victims providing living testimony to the effectiveness of vitamin B17, with hundreds of thousands discovering the value of nutrition, in spite of FDA-AMA pronouncements to the contrary, with Watergate and Whitewater scandals leading millions to realize that they neither can believe nor trust their political leaders, we are coming to a point of open resistance to government which could make the Boston Tea Party look like child's play.

There are still a few who, in spite of everything, continue to reassure themselves that totalitarian government could never be imposed on the American people. With each new edict and each new loss of personal liberty, they respond cheerfully.

"Don't worry. It can't happen here."

To which Dr. Krebs replies:

IT CAN HAPPEN HERE. In the U.S.S.R. people are prevented from fleeing the country because their masters tell them they are not fit to choose the political system under which they are to live. The choice must be made for them... In the U.S.A. cancer victims are prevented from fleeing for their lives for Laetrile in foreign countries because their government tells these people they are not fit to decide such matters for themselves...

IT IS HAPPENING HERE. Tyranny knows no boundaries. Unopposed, it flourishes malignantly. How great it would be if even a very small society of patriotic American physicians, banding together, could invoke the Nuremberg principles of defying government in its evil or murderous ends and defiantly use Laetrile.(1)

1. Open Letter on occasion of arrest of Mrs. Mary C. Whelchel, Feb. 28, 1971; Griffin, Private Papers, op. cit.

The mood of rebellion is in the air. Increasingly, men and women who never dreamed of breaking the law are responding to the principles of Nuremberg. They are being driven to choose between loyalty to the system or loyalty to conscience.

In some cases they must even choose between the law or life itself. Many are coming to realize that the system which commanded their loyalty in the past is no longer a reality.

It is a hollow shell, a democratic facade thinly veiling the reality of dictatorship. When they pledge allegiance to the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stood, they do so in sadness as one bids a last requiem farewell at the funeral of a departed loved one.

This is the mood and character of that grass-roots movement that can and will break the grip of the conspiracy. It already is too late to be otherwise.

We have come to the last depot stop where men who value their scientific credentials or their personal honor must either get on board or miss the train altogether, because that train is going to keep its schedule with history - with them or without them.
 

Back to Contents