[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.another study to debunk the movement.Ninety-three cancerA living and healthy patient with a tumor reduced by only 15%would be classified as a failure.A sick and dying patient with a1.Dr.Dean Burk presented a devastating expose of this manipulation oftumor reduced 60% would be a success.statistics in a fourteen-page open letter to Dr.Seymour Perry of the NCI, MarchIn spite of this stacked deck, here is what the panel found:22, 1974.See Private Papers Relating to Laetrile, edited by G.Edward Griffin(Westlake Village, Calif.: American Media, 1997)Among the Laetrile cases reviewed, 2 patients showed complete 40 WORLD WITHOUT CANCER: Part One 41GENOCIDE IN MANHATTANresponse (total tumor disappearance), 4 had partial regressionSugiura broke his experiments down into a series of tests(greater than 50%), 9 were "stabilized" (tumors had stoppedusing different types of laboratory animals and different tumors:growing), and 3 had "increased disease-free intervals." In othersome transplanted and some naturally occurring.At the conclu-words, 18 out of 22, or 82%, had some kind of beneficial responsesion of his experiment, he reported five results: (1) Laetrile even when using tumor size as the criterion.There are very fewstopped metastasis (the spreading of cancer) in mice, (2) it"approved" anti-cancer drugs that can show a report card asimproved their general health, (3) it inhibited the growth of smallgood as that.tumors, (4) it provided relief from pain, and (5) it acted as aNone of these encouraging numbers made any difference.Thecancer prevention.The official report stated:official report of the NCI stated: "These results allow no definiteThe results clearly show that Amygdalin significantly inhibitsconclusions supporting the anti-cancer activity of Laetrile."(1) Thethe appearance of lung metastasis in mice bearing spontaneouswording was brilliantly deceptive.No one was expecting "defi-mammary tumors and increases significantly the inhibition of thenite conclusions" from a single study.But an honest and full growth of the primary tumors.Laetrile also seemed to preventslightly the appearance of new tumors.The improvement ofreport of the results would have been quite nice, thank you.health and appearance of the treated animals in comparison toNevertheless, the carefully structured statement conveyed thecontrols is always a common observation.Dr.Sugiura has neverimpression that Laetrile once again had failed a scientific test.observed complete regression of these tumors in all his cosmicWords had been used, not to communicate, but to obfuscate.experience with other chemotherapeutic agents.(1)The next act in this drama of pseudo science was a clinicalThe reader is advised to go back and read that last sectiontrial involving 178 patients at the Mayo Clinic.Amygdalin was toagain for, as we shall see, just a few months later, spokesmen forbe tested again, but this time it was to be combined withSloan-Kettering were flatly denying that there was any evidence"metabolic therapy" consisting of diet, enzymes, and nutritionalthat Laetrile had any value.supplements exactly what the nutritional doctors had beenTo fully appreciate what happened next, a little background isadvocating.The leading Laetrile practitioners, however, bitterlyin order.The board of directors at Sloan-Kettering is virtuallyobjected that the protocol used was not comparable to theirs.controlled by corporate executives representing the financialFurthermore, there was serious doubt about the purity of theinterests of pharmaceutical companies.Most of that control isamygdalin being used.It was suspected that the entire experi-held by the Rockefeller dynasty and their cartel partners.At thement was carefully crafted to fail.And fail, it did.The Mayotime of the Sugiura tests, there were three Rockefellers sitting ondoctors reported: "No substantive benefit was observed."the board (James, Laurance, and William) plus more than a dozenIt is hard to beat this unbroken record of deception in themen whose companies were within the Rockefeller financialcloak of science, but the granddaddy of them all occurred a feworbit.years later at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center inThe history of how the Rockefellers became involved in theManhattan.For five years, between 1972 and 1977, Laetrile waspharmaceutical industry is contained in Part Two of this book.meticulously tested at Sloan-Kettering under the direction of Dr.But, to appreciate how that effects this part of the story, we mustKanematsu Sugiura.As the senior laboratory researcher there,know that John D.Rockefeller, Sr., and his son, J.D., II, beganwith over 60 years of experience, Dr.Sugiura had earned thedonating to Memorial Hospital in 1927.They also gave a fullhighest respect for his knowledge and integrity.In a scienceblock of land on which the new hospital was built in the 1930s.laboratory, where truth is sought to the exclusion of all else, heNothing was given without something to be received.In this case,would have been the perfect man for this test.For the purposes ofwas control over one of the great medical centers of the world.Sloan-Kettering, however, he was the worst possible choice.How that happened was described by Ralph Moss, former1.N.M.Ellison, "Special Report on Laetrile: The NCI Laetrile Review.Results1." Summary of the Effect of Amygdalin Upon Spontaneous Mammaryof the National Cancer Institute's Retrospective Laetrile Analysis." New EnglandTumors in mice"Slone Kettering report, June 13,1973.Journal of Medicine 299:549-52, Sept.7,1978. GENOCIDE IN MANHATTAN 4342 WORLD WITHOUT CANCER: Part OneAs it turned out, several others had already duplicatedAssistant Director of Public Affairs at Sloan-Kettering.SpeakingSugiura's experiments and had obtained essentially the sameof the expansion of Sloan-Kettering after World War II, Mosspositive results.One was Dr.Elizabeth Stockert and another waswrote:Dr.Lloyd Schloen.Both were biochemists at Sloan-KetteringThe composition of the board of trustees at that time reveals awhen they did the work
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]