Re: Laetrile--Interview of Dr Manner

[Guest guest]

LAETRILE (B17)

Interview of DR Harold Manners by Acres USA 1978

ACRES USA How long has your work with Laetrile being going on?

DR MANNER About 6 or 7 years.

ACRES USA Is this orthodox work?

DR MANNER I would say unorthodox because of my belief. I firmly believe that

cancer to date is curable. And I further believe that cancer today is

preventable. Ant that means it takes care of everyone one way or another.

Those who have burning lumps—they have hope. Those who don't have them,

there is even greater hope they can be prevented.

ACRES You realize, of course, that these are strong statements. Can we

explore the basis for what you are saying. When did you first become

involved with cancer research at Loyola University?

DR MANNER I went there in 1972 without any idea that I was going to be

working in cancer. By training I am a developmental biologist. This means

that anything that has to do with development of cells, normal or abnormal,

falls into my province. As you know Loyola is located in Chicago, next to

Lake Michigan. I was concerned at that time with pollution of the Great

Lakes. I wanted to test the effect of various pollutants on developing fish

embryos because these tissues are very susceptible.

It was while I was working in this are that I began to realize most

pollutants are carcinogenic. So my library work turned to carcinogens, which

was how I came upon a paper back called World Without Cancer. I read the

book and nearly laughed out loud. To think that anyone could postulate

anything as simple as the laetrile hypothesis developed by Ernst Koreas and

his son. How could they develop anything quite so simple for something I

considered so very complex as cancer itself? So I put the book away vowing

never to take it out again.

ACRES USA Yet it didn't go away?

DR MANNERS No. There was just enough of a ring of truth to what was said.

So, I talked to my graduate students and said—Lets get off pollution work

for a little while, and lets take this theory and lets subject it to

laboratory analysis. That was the first time that I realized I was about to

enter something far different than anything I had ever encountered in my 30

years of research work.

ACRES USA How would you characterize that difference?

DR MANNER Well it was not in any way scientific. I saw charges and more

charges.....charges that Laetrile was worthless. That it was a panacea. The

interesting thing is that most of the reading came from editorials, in

newspapers, or paperbacks, and there was very little documentation of

scientific evidence. I also realised I was entering something strange when I

stated calling some of my friends who were involved in similar areas, and

the conversation would be nice, until I mentioned Laetrile. I almost got

complete silence, and then an invitation to meet them someplace. I tell you

I have met more people in more parked cars and basements of health food

stores than I thought I would ever meet in my life.

ACRES USA This was your baptism into the laetrile climate?

DR MANNERS It certainly was. But something else was interesting. I knew the

research would cost money, and I couldn't go to government or the

pro-laetrile forces as there would be strings attached. I went to the

administrator at Loyola University which is a Jesuit school and they managed

to provide the money and support my work.

ACRES USA You then encountered no difficulty in doing this work?

DR MANNERS Not exactly " no difficulty " . Let me explain just one thing. It

has a bearing on the rest of my work. I hold what is called a hard drug or

controlled substance license from the state of Illinois....which controls

such things a morphine, cocaine, and so on. I also hold the same hard drug

license from the US government. I hold the only key to the Loyola hard drug

locker. This means my credentials, and background have been investigated. I

have never had any trouble in my entire life ordering any drug, any

pharmaceutical from any place anywhere in the world until I tried to order

the extract of an apricot pit.

ACRES USA And you had to get it if work was to proceed?

DR MANNERS Of course. And please remember that I was not pro-laetrile or

anti-laetrile. A scientist has no business being for or against anything.

His only business is to be objective, but you need the laetrile....or

amygdalin which is the correct name for this substance.

ACRES USA This is available through the usual suppliers you use?

DR MANNERS Yes. One of the companies I do a great deal of business with is

Sigma, and right on the pages of their catalogue is amygdalin....50 gms for

$90. I wrote out my order, and the school forwarded it to Sigma. Usually in

3 or 4 days I get my shipment. Well, two weeks went by. So I got on the

phone....they said we can't ship it....the FDA requires an

affidavit.......they want you to state that if we sell it to you that you

will promise that you will not use it on any human being. I said you know I

am a research biologist, not an MD, and I never use anything in my lab on

human beings...so I prepared a good affidavit...

ACRES Was this satisfactory to the FDA?

DR MANNERS Yes to some extent. I sent this off and got my first bottle of

amygdalin.

ACRES USA What is the scope of your work?

DR MANNERS I have a very big lab running 2,000 to 3,000 mice at any one

time. So I use it very fast.

USA Did you have problems reordering?

DR MANNERS Well, they wanted an affidavit on every order! So I Xeroxed a few

hundred of these affidavits, and they go from my secretary's desk to the

files of Sigma

About 6 months ago they then wanted 2 affidavits. One that I would not use

it on humans, and another that I would not use it on any other animals other

than my own. They had heard that vets were getting good results from

Laetrile, and they didn't want me to be a fence for hot laetrile.

ACRES USA How did you test the basic hypothesis of Ernst Krebs, Jr?

DR MANNERS He suggested that laetrile when injected......because it contains

a deadly cyanide......circulates around the body until it comes into contact

with an enzyme, that is capable of releasing that cyanide. As the theory

goes, the enzyme that releases it is found in the tumour tissue. But then

the cyanide could escape the area of the tumour and get into the general

circulatory system, which might be dangerous to the body, so there is

another enzyme in all normal tissue called rhodenese, and this neutralizes

the cyanide which is then excreted in the urine. It looks very good on

paper.

ACRES USA And you decided to test it scientifically?

DR MANNERS Yes. The first thing we wanted to do was check out the enzymes.

Are they really where Krebs suggested they were? In general they were. There

were a few changes in that we found there was quite a bit in the liver...but

in general the highest tissue containing the unlocking enzyme was the tumour

tissue itself. Other tissues were very low in it. The second thing we wanted

to see was whether or not the material broke down as suggested. So what we

did was we injected laetrile into the animals and then we collected their

urine for 24 hours looking for the end product--sodium thiocyanate--and

hippuric acid, two of the neutralized end products of laetrile.

It was there. As we increased the dosage of laetrile we also got an increase

of these compounds in the urine. All this was reported in the scientific

journals.

One of the charges being made at that time...and because the FDA's back is

against the wall, they're starting to reinstitute those charges...is that

laetrile is poisonous. Just a few weeks ago a Dr ...said something

about eating lettuce with laetrile pills was liable to cause all kinds of

problems. My phone rang off the wall due to this....It was a scare tactic. I

object to that coming from the government of the US. I object to that

poster hanging in post offices and in doctors offices Laetrile Warning. I've

challenged the FDA on national TV--that every one of those statements is not

just a half truth, but a downright lie, and they know it. And they are just

making an attempt to re-scare the American people.

ACRES USA What about the little girl story allegedly killed by laetrile

poisoning?

DR MANNERS Yes, I was lecturing in Buffalo, New York, and a man stood up and

asked how I can make strong statements about laetrile when the FDA is making

the opposite statements? And how he would have to take theirs...look at that

little girl....who died after taking her fathers laetrile tablets.

Just then a lady stood up and said...I think I am entitled to answer that

question as I am that little baby's mother. She told the true story, which

was that the baby never touched her father's tablets. The doctor...knowing

the father was on laetrile...marked down possible cyanide poisoning. At the

hospital they used a cyanide antidote, and it was the antidote that killed

the child. And yet that statement will continue to appear even though they

know it is a lie.

ACRES USA In regard to this alleged toxicity, what have been your findings?

DR MANNERS We ran the tests. We started injecting animals with laetrile. We

started with dosages that were very small and ended up with dosages 10 times

the maximum dose ever given to any human being in any clinic in the world.

After a 4 week period of daily injections, not one of the animals was dead.

Not one was sick. In fact, every one looked much better than the

controls---hair shiny, eyes glistening, and this was understandable because

what we were giving them was not a drug but a natural food product, what Dr

Dean Burke called vitamin B17.

ACRES USA You have appeared on platforms opposite FDA spokesman. Why would a

scientist refuse to consider your valid scientific evidence?

DR MANNERS I can only speculate on this point....at every meeting I was

opposite an FDA representative, Dr Young.....this time it was different as

we had finished the toxicity studies. We had shown it to be non-toxic. This

was published and sent to the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and to Sloane

Kettering. Then at the next legislature meeting I heard Dr Young say to the

senators, " Gentlemen, the FDA cannot support the use of laetrile because it

is an unsafe substance. " I looked at him and said how can you say that? You

have my report that it is non-toxic. Oh, I didn't say it was toxic, I said

it was unsafe. So you see they are changing the definition. He said " We mean

by unsafe that if a person uses it they might not use orthodox therapy " , and

so for this reason the FDA considers it unsafe.

ACRES USA Of course you can't argue with that kind of double-think by using

science. Still, it is difficult for us to believe many fine scientists at

Sloane Kettering and NCI would be a party to this.

DR MANNERS This bothered us to...I know many of them... fine scientists. I

knew the FDA was constantly saying the results were negative. And this

bothered me. Everything we had done said it should work. But here were these

people---good qualified scientists....repeating over and over again, No it

doesn't work. Sometimes in science you have to slow down.

ACRES USA Did you abandon the experiments?

DR MANNERS No. We decided to repeat what we had done, using their animals

and their tumours, the laetrile and the doses they used, we repeated the

experiments. And when we were done....and I don't know why it surprised

me...we found exactly the same thing they had found....that laetrile when

used in the experiments that were done by Sloane Kettering and NCI...was

worthless.

ACRES USA Yet this was not the position you ultimately took?

DR MANNERS Well, not a position--it was something that threw us back in our

lab. Now the situation was worse than ever. I had on the one hand data that

said it should work, and on the other hand I had my own data that said it

doesn't work. I suppose we could have quit at that time and joined the

public pronouncements that laetrile didn't work, and it might have been the

final nail in the laetrile coffin.

ACRES USA What did you do then?

DR MANNERS We stopped and talked about it for several weeks. Two things

emerged. One, there was the type of tumour we were using. We would buy the

mice from laboratory up in Maine. These were healthy mice. They

dined on Purina Lab-Chow formulated by nutritionists. I'm convinced if the

American public ate like my mice we would have far less disease in this

country.

Anyway, these mice came to our lab in perfect condition. Then I ordered a

couple of mice with a tumour. I'd take that tumour out of those mice, put

them in a little glass jar and break the tumour into free cells---then take

a hypodermic needle with about a million of those cells and inject it

directly into the animal's body, and they multiply. Within about 18 days

they die of the tumour. So I submit to you that a human being does not get

cancer that way. You don't go to a doctor and say " doctor I feel terrific " ,

and he says, " I'll take care of that " and gives you a shot of something so

you get cancer. No way does that happen. This is a transplanted tumour. This

was the type of tumour we used, also Sloane Kettering and NCI.

ACRES USA Were you able to get enough mice with built in tumours?

DR MANNERS As it happened, Lab had a mouse called the C.3H mice

which has been bred to develop cancer in their later years (50-55% of them),

which is the way humans get it, over a period of time.... we kept them

downstairs until we felt a tumour, and then, only then moved them to the

experimental lab. We used no carcinogens, no cancer cells, just whatever was

happening in that

animal's body to cause it to get cancer.

ACRES USA Did you make any attempt to use the laetrile regimen of doctors

around the world who treat cancer with laetrile?

DR MANNERS That was the next thing. I started to travel to learn something

more about laetrile. The only place I could really learn was in clinics

where laetrile was actually being used, in California with Dr .

Mexico with Dr Contreras and Dr Sotox, Jamaica with Drs Brown & Ransburger,

Hanover with Dr Nieper. Each regime was a little different. But one thing

was common of all of them--and I don't know how this escaped me, and how it

escaped MSK and NCI...was that laetrile was never used by itself...always in

conjunction with a complete therapeutic program. And here we were in the lab

just using laetrile.

ACRES USA The single variable?

DR MANNERS Yes. And this made it necessary for us to reformulate our

experiments. Although the routine did differ from lab to lab. I found some

things in common. All of course, used laetrile. All of them used various

forms of enzymes. All of them used vitamin C and vitamin A.

ACRES USA Did you duplicate these things in your studies?

DR MANNERS Yes. We started a new series on breast cancers to try to

determine whether or not laetrile was effective. It was the results of these

experiments that they said dropped a bombshell on the scientific community.

I shouldn't have because everything I was doing was relayed by the week to

those other national labs if they wanted to follow along with me. We

eliminated vitamin C, as it makes its own, unlike humans. That left us with

laetrile, enzymes and vitamin A.. We scaled them down to the size of a

mouse—so for the purposes of what I am telling you here let me scale them

back up again.

ACRES In terms of a human being?

DR MANNERS Yes, in terms of a 60 kilo person.. Laetrile was injected

intramuscularly in the rump area every day..and we gave 9-12 grams of

laetrile. The vitamin A..we gave 1 million international units each and

every day. Now I'm sure you will say " that sure is toxic " and you are right.

It is toxic if it is used in the same form in which you normally see vitamin

A. But we didn't use it that way. We had it made for us in Germany. One of

the firms there manufactured a material called A-mulsion.

This is vitamin A that is highly emulsified, broken down into very fine

little particles. It looks like a foam when you use it. When that's taken

into the body, it plays tricks. Instead of going to normal channels and

going up to the liver where vitamin A damage usual occurs, it goes into the

lymphatic system, and this by-passes the liver, and therefore you don't have

this toxic effect.

ACRES The enzymes?

DR MANNERS They were not hard enzymes. And were from the lentil bean, the

garden pea, the papaya plant, the thymus gland of the rat, and pancreatin

from the beef pancreas. This mixture comes from Drs Wolf and Rasburger. It

has been shown to have tremendous effect on the tumour.

ACRES What is the rational behind each of these things?

DR MANNERS The tumour as it grows does not belong in the body. I'm convinced

that the normal state of the human body is health, it has enough within

itself to bring it back to health. We see that in the tremendous surgery

that is being done --transplants. We read over and over however, that

whenever a heart is put into a person, rejection takes place, it does not

belong there, and the body knows it. So rejection takes place. I am

convinced that a tumour does not belong in the body and the body should

reject it.

ACRES Why does it not do this?

DR MANNERS As a tumour grows it develops around itself a layer of protein

which is almost like a plastic bubble. And that thing around a tumour

prevents it from being recognised as a foreign invader. So what our enzymes

do is not dissolve that tumour, but that protein around the outside. When

this is done the body knows it shouldn't be there, and it recognizes it. And

the immune system takes over. But usually the immune system at that time is

very weak. This is well documented.

ACRES What happens when the protein is fully peeled off that tumour?

DR MANNERS That is when laetrile goes to work. It releases its deadly

cyanide and goes to work on those cells.

ACRES USA How did the animal experiments prove this out?

DR MANNERS We used 105 animals in one test. They were broken down into 2

groups. The first was the experimental group. There were 84 animals, 84 that

had developed breast cancer. They were the control group. They received

injections and oral ingestion’s of physiological saline solution, the normal

body fluids. Just to make sure it wasn't the injection or the fluid we were

giving. The other animals received the laetrile, the vitamin A and the

enzyme. The enzyme was specifically made so that I could inject it near and

around the tumour site itself in order to get rid of the protein layer.

ACRES The results?

DR MANNERS Absolutely fantastic. They have been repeated a number of times

and people who have been skeptical...who have been to the lab...are seeing

it happen. These experiments are still going on. At the end of a 4 to 6 week

period...and there was a spread in time...we got some real results. At the

end of the second enzyme injection a small pimple appeared at the site of

the tumour. It looked like a whitehead, or a boil. After the next injection

that whitehead would burst open, and a white pus came out. We took that

white pus and put it on a microscope slide and bought it to the pathology

lab of the American International Hospital, which works with me....they were

dead cancer cells. As we continued the treatments, the pus moved out. As it

moved out the tumours got smaller and smaller. At the end of 4-6 weeks in

90% of the animals, the tumours were completely gone. And those animals were

taken to the hospital, and autopsied and given a completely clean bill of

health. Not a cancer cell anywhere. the other 10% were also affected. At the

close of this particular experiment they were in a partial stage of

regression.

ACRES USA Have you taken this story to the general public?

DR MANNERS I presented the general story together with slide pictures before

over 2000 people in Chicago. It was the annual meeting of the National

Health Federation. The next day instead of the AMA at least saying " Well we

might have something here " they came out with a blast that went nationwide.

The blast had nothing to do with what I was doing or the results achieved.

They simply condemned for presenting my material in the wrong place.

ACRES USA What did they want you to do?

DR MANNERS Take it through the normal scientific channels, but I had a

special reason for not doing so this time. I'm not playing games with

cancer. This would have taken 18 months to 2 years to clear the various

journal editors. For a lab to pick it up and repeat it would take another 2

years. That's 4-5 years. A cancer patient doesn't have 5 years. If I were to

do again I would do it exactly as I have done, in spite of the ACS.

ACRES USA Yes, but can you take it further than this?

DR MANNERS By myself, no. But people can. And they have in a number of ways.

One thing that happened that has never happened to me in my life is what we

call the " widows mite " . I would start getting checks across my

desk...$5...$10... saying here is some money to support your research. We

set up a fund called the Manner Research Fund... and received over $60,000

since July last year. Biotic Lab in Texas has supported us. The Food Science

Lab as well. The key to the whole thing is that with that support our lab

can remain free with allegiance only to the people of the US. And don't

think that does not bother those agencies that wish they could pull their

funds from under me.

ACRES USA But that's still animal research. How can this be taken to the

patient with cancer?

DR MANNERS Well, for one thing women who have been in the audience have been

sitting there with something burning in their breasts. They have gone to

their doctors and they have said " before we take it off I'd like to try this

Manner technique " . I can assure you I have had phone calls from more irate

surgeons in this country than you can believe.

ACRES USA How do they come on?

DR MANNERS Usually they indicate to me in no uncertain terms that they don't

believe a word of what I am saying. But at the insistence of the patients

they'll try it. And then they ask me how it works.

ACRES USA Do you charge for this service?

DR MANNERS Only one thing. I ask for and am beginning to get the complete

reports from these physicians concerning their patients; patients starting

with a complete biopsy showing malignancy with a prognosis of radical

mastectomy; with a subsequent refusal of the patient to endure that surgery;

hospital records showing the administration of laetrile, vitamin A and the

enzyme; and then at the end, a complete clean bill of health. In consulting

with these doctors I have indicated to everyone that I will not charge, but

I want the records.

ACRES USA Then there is a cure?

DR MANNERS From any other source I would consider that a trick question. The

definition of a cure is a 5 year period with no re-occurrence. I can't say

that those women will not get a re-occurrence within a 5 year period. They

will have to wait. I can tell you one thing, while they're waiting those 5

years, they will be waiting with hope.

Laetrile

Laetrile sites:

y Cathay Research Source: http://www.navi.net/~rsc/index.html OR

http://www.europa.com/~rsc/

THE NITRILOSIDES IN PLANTS AND ANIMALS http://www.navi.net/~rsc/nitrilo1.htm

Therapeutically Effective Amygdalin http://www.navi.net/~rsc/isomyg.htm

The Nitrilosides (Vitamin B-17)-Their Nature,Occurence and Metabolic

Significance

(Antineoplastic Vitamin B-17) http://www.navi.net/~rsc/krebs3.htm

Suggested Mechanisms of action of Vitamin B-17

http://www.navi.net/~rsc/gurchot.htm

The Unitarian or Trophoblastic Thesis of Cancer, by Ernst T. Krebs, Jr.,

Ernst T. Krebs, Sr.,and H. Beard

http://www.navi.net/~rsc/unitari1.htm

Laetrile sites:

http://www.europa.com/~rsc/

http://www.laetrile.net/

http://www.canceranswer.com/

http://www.heavenlyhealing.com/

Book: World Without Cancer: The Story of Vitamin B17---

http://www.realityzone.com/

Laetrile clinics:

American Biologics - Mexico http://www.abmex.com/

Donsbach clinic http://www.donsbach.com/

Contreras hospital http://www.contrerashospital.com/

Harold Manner Memorial Hospital http://www.manner.com.mx/

Dr Atkins cancer protocol:

http://www.alternativemedicine.com/alternativemedicine/digest/issue11/i11-a5

0.shtml

------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Guest guest]

Quite interesting - thanks for sharing this. But, if you notice, there is a

definite " flaw " to his research that automatically biases it unfairly. Note

the following quote:

" DR MANNERS Only one thing. I ask for and am beginning to get the complete

reports from these physicians concerning their patients; patients starting

with a complete biopsy showing malignancy with a prognosis of radical

mastectomy; with a subsequent refusal of the patient to endure that surgery;

hospital records showing the administration of laetrile, vitamin A and the

enzyme; and then at the end, a complete clean bill of health. In consulting

with these doctors I have indicated to everyone that I will not charge, but

I want the records. "

To do a TRULY scientific study, he should evaluate not only the successes

but the failures. By his own words, though, he wants only those records that

show " and then at the end, a complete clean bill of health. " . Given his

conditions, ALL the records he gets will ONLY be the " successes " . If 100

patients had cancer and 99 died, he'd only get ONE set of records. Is he

then equating this with a 100% cure rate - the one that he cured?

Since he professes to be a scientist, I'm really surprised at his

abandonment of the scientific method to get his results...

> Re: Laetrile--Interview of Dr Manner

>

>

> LAETRILE (B17)

>

> Interview of DR Harold Manners by Acres USA 1978

>

>

------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Guest guest]

And after over 30 years of collecting data, what has he found? Does anyone

know if he published results?

> Re: Laetrile--Interview of Dr Manner

>

>

> LAETRILE (B17)

>

> Interview of DR Harold Manners by Acres USA 1978

>

> ACRES USA How long has your work with Laetrile being going on?

>

> DR MANNER About 6 or 7 years.

>

>

------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Guest guest]

Re: Laetrile--Interview of Dr Manner

>Quite interesting - thanks for sharing this. But, if you notice, there is a

>definite " flaw " to his research that automatically biases it unfairly. Note

>the following quote:

>

> " DR MANNERS Only one thing. I ask for and am beginning to get the complete

>reports from these physicians concerning their patients; patients starting

>with a complete biopsy showing malignancy with a prognosis of radical

>mastectomy; with a subsequent refusal of the patient to endure that

surgery;

>hospital records showing the administration of laetrile, vitamin A and the

>enzyme; and then at the end, a complete clean bill of health. In consulting

>with these doctors I have indicated to everyone that I will not charge, but

>I want the records. "

>

>To do a TRULY scientific study, he should evaluate not only the successes

>but the failures. By his own words, though, he wants only those records

that

>show " and then at the end, a complete clean bill of health. " . Given his

>conditions, ALL the records he gets will ONLY be the " successes " . If 100

>patients had cancer and 99 died, he'd only get ONE set of records. Is he

>then equating this with a 100% cure rate - the one that he cured?

>

>Since he professes to be a scientist, I'm really surprised at his

>abandonment of the scientific method to get his results...

>

You could be right. It was more for the politics. I think Manner died in

1988. It seems to be difficult to get good laetrile at the moment. One

of the best research was done by Guidetti:

In ltaly there is Professor Etore Guidetti M.D., of the University of Turin

Medical School. Dr. Guidetti spoke before the Conference of the

International Union Against Cancer held in Brazil in 1954 and revealed how

his use of Laetrile in terminal cancer patients had caused the destruction

of a wide variety of tumors including those of the uterus, cervix, rectum,

and breast. " In some cases, " he said, " one has been able to observe a group

of fulminating and cauliflower-like neoplastic masses resolved very

rapidly. " He reported also that, after administering Laetrile to patients

with lung cancer, he had been " able to observe, with the aid of radiography,

a regression of the neoplasm or the metastases. " After Guidetti's

presentation, an American doctor rose in the audience and informed everyone

present that Laetrile had been thoroughly investigated in the United States

and found to be worthless. Dr. Guidetti replied, " I do not care what was

determined in the United States. I am merely reporting what I saw in my own

clinic. " '

------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Guest guest]

Re: Laetrile--Interview of Dr Manner

>>

>>

>> LAETRILE (B17)

>>

>> Interview of DR Harold Manners by Acres USA 1978

>>

>>

>

------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Guest guest]

RE: Re: Laetrile--Interview of Dr Manner

>> One of the best research was done by Guidetti:

>>

> **Are you truly serious with that statement? Notice that Dr.

>Guidetti says " In some cases " - that doesn't seem too definite to me.

>

> and

>

> " able to observe, with the aid of radiography,

> a regression of the neoplasm or the metastases "

>

> which is hardly demonstrable proof! What if the radiology machine

>were defective?

>

> Again, WHERE are the scientific studies? Not the " I observed that...

> " kinds of things.

>

> These doctors cry that no one takes them seriously, that no one

>believes them - and then they try to furnish THIS kind of proof or

>rationale?

>

> The final incredible statement he makes is " " I do not care what was

> determined in the United States. I am merely reporting what I saw in

>my own

> clinic. " '

>

> Sounds like he's saying " I don't care what scientific study has

>found....I believe my eyes " .

>

Tends to be the clinical way.

I suppose you want to believe Moertel.

Arlin J Brown:

" Over the years, Laetrile has been shown to be effective against cancer by

many researchers in many countries, especially when it is used in

conjunction with a complete program of metabolic therapy, including

vitamins, minerals, enzymes and diet.

However, on April 30, 1981, Dr. Moertel of the Mayo Clinic stood up

before a news conference and simply lied about the results of the Phase II

Laetrile clinical trials which were conducted for the National Cancer

Institute. Dr. Moertel falsely declared that Laetrile was not effective as

a cancer treatment. The NCI stated that the clinical trials showed that

Laetrile was " Totally ineffective and worthless. " Dr. Moertel said, " We

gave it our best shot, but we could fine nothing to recommend it to cancer

patients. " Now we can't let these lies go unchal-lenged.

First of all, they made sure that all 163 patients were terminal before

giving them Laetrile. In other words, the patients had already been thru

the mill with the destructive orthodox treatments which had practically

destroyed their bodies.

Secondly, they used the wrong kind of Laetrile, which was impure. A pure

amygdalin was offered by several researchers, but they were turned down.

Thirdly, they failed to use the anti-cancer enzymes which are an essential

part of the therapy and are apparently even more effective than the Laetrile

itself.

Fourthly, they gave the vitamins in extremely low dosages, even below

maintenance levels. For instance, only 250 mg. of Vitamin C were given,

instead of 15,000 mg. a day. At Dr. Manner's hospital, they go as high as

85,000 mg. a day. Only 400 I.U. of Vitamin A were given daily, instead of

close to 1,000,000 I.U. and it was not even emulsified.

Fifthly, they made no attempt to detoxify or even to regulate bowel

movements. No attempt was made to regulate the pH and no glandular support

was given.

Now, keeping all these things in mind - the wrong Laetrile, the wrong

metabolic therapy and the wrong patients---let's take a look at the

findings:

The test results showed that 70% of the patients receiving the Laetrile

injections for three weeks experienced an arrest of their cancer and were in

stable condition. But after three weeks, the researchers decided to take

all the patients off of their daily injections and placed them on much lower

levels of Laetrile in the less effective tablet form only. Not

surprisingly, a majority of those in the study then began to deteriorate and

most eventually died. In other words, 70% of them stabilized for as long as

they were kept on a high dosage and deteriorated only after their dosage was

greatly reduced. Nevertheless, patients reported a reduction in pain. At

least on patient experienced total relief from the severe pains which had

required regular narcotic injections which were eventually discontinued

altogether.

The NCI's own chart, which was literally whisked before observers and not

referred to in its press kit, clearly revealed that 70% of the terminal

patients were indeed stable at three weeks. Last year even the Journal of

the American Medical Association stated that amygdalin injections were

nontoxic.

Many observers came to the conclusion that the NCI tests proved that

Laetrile was extremely effective in the control of cancer - far more so than

any other therapy ever tested.

At the news conference. Dr. Moertal stated that 104 of the 163 patients who

began taking Laetrile in July of 1980 had died and that the patients had

begun showing significant deterioration after three weeks of treatment.

Under questioning by W , a pharmacist from Baltimore,

Moertel admitted that during the first three weeks, the patients were given

shots of amygdalin in 4½ gram doses. After three weeks the dose was reduced

to 1½ grams in tablet form.

The Mayo Clinic was much more concerned with the ability of Laetrile to

reduce the size of tumors than they were with the improvement in health and

the extension of life. They don't seem to realize that a tumor is only a

symptom of cancer. After the testing was completed, Dr. DeVita,

Directorof NCI, told the press, " The hollow promise of this drug has led

thousands of Americans away from potentially helpful therapy of scientific

validity. Now the facts speak for themselves. "

Well, all I can say is that if Dr. DeVita were to keep his mouth shut, maybe

the facts would have a better chance of speaking for themselves, but not in

the way that he would wish.

If Laetrile were tested by criteria established for the yet-to-be conducted

Phase III studies - the extension of a cancer patient's life - it should

fare well. But Dr. Moertel stated that further studies were no longer

needed, since Laetrile had " failed " the Phase II tests. " --Arlin J Brown

According to Walters, Dr. Cason of the University of

California, Berkeley, analyzed the compound used in the Mayo Clinic study

using infrared spectrophotometry and determined that it did not contain

amygdalin at all.

Dean Burk: (See How They Lie):

" Dr. Schmidt, FDA Commissioner, as cited on about March 25, 1974…”Every

study to date has not found any evidence of efficacy” with laetrile, and “if

there was one shred of evidence from animal or cell systems I would issue an

IND” (Investigational New Drug status that approves clinical testing in

humans).

Mr. Wetherell, Acting Director, Office of Legislative Services, FDA,

“No evidence of antitumour activity has been found in any of the tests” with

Laetrile, in current issued status report.

Dr. Rauscher, Director, NCI, “I would certainly not turn off Laetrile

if it had an iota of activity that we could pinpoint. Unfortunately, there

is no evidence at all,” stated on March 312, 1974 on the Mike Wallace 60

Minutes CBS Show.

Dr. Hadsell, Officer of Cancer Communications, NCI, “All testing by

NCI has found no evidence of activity against cancer” by laetrile, in

letters sent throughout the US and abroad.

Dr. Steinfeld, former Surgeon General of the USHS, Laetrile “has

repeatedly been tested in animal tumour systems at the NCI. In no instance

did laetrile have activity in any animal tumour system. There is no basis

for the use of laetrile in man based on the data derived from experiments in

animals,” in an interoffice memo sent to Dept Heads of the Mayo Clinic, jan

1974.

Dr. Moertel, of the Mayo Clinic, “Extensive animal tumour studies

conducted independently at two outstanding cancer research centres—New York

memorial Sloan Kettering (MSK) and the Southern Research Institute-—ave

shown this drug to be totally without evidence of anticancer activity.” In

aletter published in the Rochester (Minn.) Post Bulletin, Jan 21 1974.

The facts are, as partially detailed in the letter of March 22, 1974 from

Dean Burk to Seymour , that positive, statistically highly significant,

anticancer activity by Laetrile in animal tumour systems has been observed

in at least 5 independent institutions in 3 widely separated countries of

the world, with a variety of animal cancers;

1). Southern Research Institute (Birmingham Alabama), for the NCI, in a

majority of 280 BDF1 mice bearing lung cancers, treated with up to 400

mg Laetrile (Amygdalin MF) per kg body weight, with respect to increased

median life span (Dec 3, 1973).

2). Sloan Kettering (New York) with CD8 F1 mice bearing spontaneous mammary

carcinomas, inhibition of formation of lung metastases, inhibition of growth

of primary tumours, and greater health and appearance of animal hosts, upon

treatment with 1-2 gm Laetrile/per kg body weight/day. (June 13, 1973)

3). Scind Laboratories, University of San Francisco, 400 rats bearing

256 carcinoma (200 treated with Amygdalin, 200 controls), with 80% increase

in life span at optimum dosage (500 mg Amgdalin/kg body weight). (Oct 10,

1968) Cf. FDA-IND 6734 application, pp. 247-248, 00080-00093. NCI Director

Carl Baker wrote Congressman Edwin W. on Jan 26, 1971: “The data

provided by the McNaughton Foundation certainly indicates some activity in

animal tumour systems” (emphasis added).

4). Pasteur Institute (Paris), with human cancer strain maintained in mice,

treated at optimal dosage og 500 mg Amygdalin Marsan/kg body weight/day,

increased life span and delayed tumour growth up to 100% (Dec 6, 1971).

5). Institute von ardenne (Dresden, Germnay), H strain mice bearing Ehrlich

ascites carcinoma treated with bitter almond amygdalin ad libitum in

addition to regular chow diet, yielded increased life span and decreased

rate of cancer growth, treatment beginning 15 days before cancer inoculation

(arch. Geschwulstorsch. 42, 135-7 (1973). " See How They Lie, See How They

Lie

By Dean Burk, National Cancer Institute Research, Retired

Vitamin C:

" Two alleged trials took place under the direction of Dr. Moertel at

the Mayo Clinic. However as one might expect from a proven swindler

operating at such a dishonoured location, these bore little resemblence to

scientific methodology. Moertel cooked the first trial…by packing the

trial with patients whose immune systems had already been destroyed by toxic

chemotherapy. He then rigged the second trial by treating the patients with

ascorbate for only two and a half months and then continuing with the

" trial " for another 2 years. He then issued a perjured press statement in

which he announced that vitamin C therapy had been proven ineffective,

carefully concealing the fact that he had almost certainly caused the death

of several patients by reason of this iniquitous fraud. The resulting

carefully devised publicity on the subject alos caused the deaths of several

other patients who had been happily surviving on ascorbate. " ---Dr s &

Hourigan.

" This man (Moertel) of the Mayo Clinic, no less….had the effrontery to

defend the employment of two toxic preparations, with no curative value, in

cases of metastasised intestinal cancer lest they (the patients) otherwise

seek it (hope) from the hands of quacks and charlatans. In other words

Moertel urged the use of a hramful substance of no value…on patients who

are, presumably, paying a fee for their therapy,…and are hoping for a

cure,…just to keep some other therapist from trying to save them!…….(you)

can find a permanent record of the distinguished Dr. Moertel’s

recommendations in the New England Journal of Medicine, 1978. " —Dr s &

Hourigan

------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Guest guest]

> Tends to be the clinical way.

>

> I suppose you want to believe Moertel.

>

*** If these statements are verifiable, then Dr. Moertel sounds

guilty of criminal/medical negligence if not outright falsification of

research results and should be held accountable. If the comments are true,

this guy should be suspended from that institution and any licenses he has

revoked.

I think it's only fair and equitable that a preparation that is

alleged to have the ability to affect cancer be agreed upon and that

formulation tested. But - with the caveat that if the combination of

ingredients that is tested as requested is found to be below the " n "

percentile of curative value that there then is not squabbling about it -

like " well, you used the wrong vitamin C... " type comments.

I feel that alternative approaches need to be AGREED UPON as to WHAT

is to be tested and then HONESTLY tested.

In this case, what was done about the alleged

lies/misrepresentations of this Doctor?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Guest guest]

Re: Laetrile--Interview of Dr Manner

>

>

>> Tends to be the clinical way.

>>

>> I suppose you want to believe Moertel.

>>

> *** If these statements are verifiable, then Dr. Moertel sounds

>guilty of criminal/medical negligence if not outright falsification of

>research results and should be held accountable. If the comments are true,

>this guy should be suspended from that institution and any licenses he has

>revoked.

>

> I think it's only fair and equitable that a preparation that is

>alleged to have the ability to affect cancer be agreed upon and that

>formulation tested. But - with the caveat that if the combination of

>ingredients that is tested as requested is found to be below the " n "

>percentile of curative value that there then is not squabbling about it -

>like " well, you used the wrong vitamin C... " type comments.

>

> I feel that alternative approaches need to be AGREED UPON as to WHAT

>is to be tested and then HONESTLY tested.

>

> In this case, what was done about the alleged

>lies/misrepresentations of this Doctor?

>

He was doing the dirty work for the medical group in power. As Dean Burk

said ---- " When you have power you don't have to tell the truth. That's a

rule that's been working for generations. And there are a great many people

who don't tell the truth when they are in power in administrative

positions. "

I am afraid the money involved is just too great. Over £100 Billion cancer

industry in the US with a knock on effect to the heart disease industry,

arthritis industry, aids industry, alzheimer's industry---over $1,500

Billion at stake.

Natural healing or nutritional healing would eliminate 90% of that.

------------------------------------------------------------------------