Re: Fwd: CLARK UPDATE: MOTION TO DISMISS HEARING

[Guest guest]

Dear Dr. Sooley,

This isn't the first time these so-called " authorities " called the

quackbusters have done this sort of thing. I'm going to print an excerpt

from a book I got yesterday called, Cancer - Why We're Still Dying to Know

the Truth. This author, Day, is a medical researcher / reporter and

has been working in this field for over ten years. He is certainly qualified

to collate and pass on medical information and report statements put out by

medical researchers and practitioners. His speciality is uncovering

suppressed truths that have been withheld from the public, usu. to serve the

ends of some covert agenda. Just as a side note, I want ya'll to know that

he also has a chapter on the dangers of personal care products and mentions

that only one company was given the " Seal of Safety " from the Cancer

Prevention Coalition and Dr. Epstein, and that company was Neways

International ( I am a distributor for Neways and was very happy to read this

information)

This book of Day's is mostly on vitamin B17 however, and I am

going to post the chapter in his book as to what he " uncovered " in his

investigation concerning these " quackbusters. "

AND THEY CRIED " QUACKERY! "

Ever since Krebs' astonishing B17 breakthrough, a thick blanket of

suppression

and persecution has smothered laetrile. The main attacks in the United

States have come through organizations closely affiliated with the

pharmaceutical and chemical combines who have much to lose if a penniless

vitamin and clean living ever became know as the answer to cancer. The

attackers' list includes the Food & Drug Administration, American Cancer

Society, The National Cancer Institute, the National Council Against Health

Fraud and Quackwatch In.c These " watchdogs " all have one goal: to cry

" quacker! " and shut down or vilify all alternative cancer treatments that

threaten the gravy-train of the $11 billion cancer-drug industry. Sadly,

they have succeeded in American when statements like this become part of the

official record: " Because their practices fall outside of standard medical

practice ( in other words, because they don't burn or poison the patient with

chemo- or radiotherapy), physicians who offer unconventional cancer

treatments are vulnerable to the civil charge of malpractice. " (Office of

Technology United States Congress, Archive of 1990)

I have spent considerable time investigating the claims of those who

attack B17. The first noteworthy point is that the detractors cannot agree

on how to " detract'. Some attack the reputations of laetrile proponents,

such as Krebs, , Moss, Manner, Burk and . Some of these

were deemed professional enough to attain key posts in leading medical

institutions, but then apparently became complete idiots, 'quacks' and

'untrustworthy individuals' as soon as they put their careers on the line to

stand behind the effectiveness of laetrile. One is of course tempted to ask

what would possess any institution doctor to risk his enviable livelihood,

reputation and income backing something that 'didn't work', an action which

would probably cost him his job. What makes a man do that? Something

monumental maybe? Something like the truth?

Dr. wrote an article for Quackwatch Inc. implying that

Ernst Krebs Jr. was an itinerant quack with fabricated qualifications: " Ernst

T. Krebs, Jr -- Laetrile's " father " -- has often been referred to as " Dr.

Krebs " although he has no accredited doctoral degree. He attended Hahnemann

Medical College in Philadelphia from 1938 - 1941, but was expelled after

repeating his freshman year and failing his sophomore year... "

Our researchers were intrigued about this colourful new version of Ernst

Krebs' background, so we wrote to Dr. asking him to source his

information. We received a reply, not from , but from Quackwatch

Inc.'s chairman, Dr. Barrett, who reffer us to a Dr. Victor Herbert.

Interestingly, during the three days we waited for Dr. Herbert to provide us

with his sources, Dr. popped up with a reply: " I got that

information from " Vitamins & 'Health' Foods: The Great American Hustle " by

Herbert and Barrett, 1981; Fourth pringing, 1984 "

Curiously we see that Barrett himself was 's source, having

co-wrote the book with Herbert! Our STephen Ransom wrote back to Barrett:

" As the book was co-written by yourself, , perhaps you would be able

to give me the answer? Yours, Steve Ransom. "

Barrett replied: " Sorry, I don't recall the original source. It might

have been

a New York Times article about laetrile written in the mid or late 1970s. You

can be sure, however, that I saw appropriate documentation at the time the

book was written. "

So here we have three different influential writers, affiliated to

Quackwatch Inc., dipping into unsourced informaiton, all 'apparently'

correct. ................

.........................

....................

........Let's listen to Jarvis MD, another Quackwatch writer, who

states: " Quackery can harm our democratic society when large numbers of

people hold wrong beliefs about the nature of cancer and the best way to deal

with it. "

First of all, isn't it interesting that Jarvis recognises that large

numbers of people disagree with him about the nature of cancer and the best

way to deal with it! Why would they disagree if medicine were succeeding

with cancer? Dr. Jarvis implicity advocates the trational route for cancer

treatment since his organization attempts to expose any and all treatments

unsanctioned by orthodox medicine. Jarvis further implies in his article, How

Quackery Harms, that he and orthodox medicine in general have the correct

belief about the nature of cncer and the best way to deal with it. Is this

borne out with the ghastly cancer death rate today and the glaring inability

of Jarvis' medicine to stop it.

ERnst Krebs, Professor Beard, Roffo, Gurchot and others were doing

in-depth studies in trophoblast cells, natural nitrilosides and formulating

their unitarian thesis on B17 decades ago, and yet offical medicine still

maintains the naive, ignorant view that apricot seeds'poison people', but can

produce not a single genuine victim in support of its allegations. More to

the point, if apricot seeds are supposed to be so lethal, why is this

'vicious' fruit still being sold in our supermarkets?

Joe Vialls: " The American FDA bombarded the media with a story about an

unfortunate couple who had poisoned themselves by eating raw apricot seeds in

San Francisco. The story made headline news across the USA, although several

suspicious journalists never managed to establish the identity of the

unforunate couple, despite many determined attempts. " ( Several attempts have

been made to present 'victims' of apricot-seed poisoning to the public in an

attempt to discredit B17. Like the case above, these have been exposed as

frauds. Doctors, oncologists and biochemists who support B17 therapy

vigorously endorse the vitamin's harmlessness when used in accordance with

researched guidelines)

On his web site, Jarvis lumps laetrile in with dubious alternative and

New Age remedies in the hope of discrediting B17 through mockery. " The

highwayman demands 'your money OR your life''', he trumpets. " But quacks

(including B17 proponents) demand your money AND your life! " Is this not the

pot calling the kettle black? What do today's orthodox cancer treatments

demand, if not 'your money AND your life " ? How much are a couple of pounds

of apricots anyway?

Sadly Jarvis also believes that when a patient is diagnosed as

'terminal', they should just accept it, go home and ... well, die. Jarvis

remonstrates, " Those who accept their fate are in the best position to use

their remaining time wisely. "

What a sad statement. It's a good job Dr. Dale Danner from Santa a,

California, didn't read that and go home to die. Nor Sykes, Joe

Botelho, Vale, or Buttons, or others you will read about later.

The bottom line is, despite all the arguments, all the bitter invective,

court cases, law suits and the slamming of jail cell doors on renegade

doctors and 'vitamin smugglers', people are STILL taking B17 Metabolic

Therapy for cancer and many are getting better. Up to 10,000 Americans a

week cross the border into Mexico or travel to other countries in order to

receive cancer treatment with laetrile, a therapy denied them by law in

American hospitals.

My question to Dr. Jarvis is simply this: " If you got cancer, what

treatment would you take? " If you reply, " Chemo, x-rays or surgery " , then

you are definitely in the minority among your peers and probably making the

statement just for the cameras. As previously stated on page 17, a survey

conducted at McGill University demonstrated that of 118 cancer doctors

polled, 64 of the 79 respondents would not consent to be in a trial

containing cisplatin, a common chemotherapy drug. Fifty-eight found all the

trials unacceptable. Their reason? The ineffectiveness of chemotherapy and

its unacceptable degree of toxicity.

By the way, who is this strident, dissenting voice and B17's bete noire

on the Internet? Dr. Jarvis is President of the previously mentioned

National Council Against Health Fraud. Isn't that something?

[Guest guest]

I, for one, would like to know exactly what this evidence is.

At 10:07 AM 3/31/00 -0500, you wrote:

>We have found evidence connecting the self-labeled

>group the " Quack Busters " (we call them " the

>quackpots " ) to the persecution of Dr. , and

>indeed, to an ongoing lawsuit. We believe they were

>instrumental in getting the investigation started in

>the first place.

_______________________________________________________

R. Sooley, DC (217) 431-3290 voice

G.F. Sooley, DC (209) 797-6521 fax

Sooley Chiropractic Health Center

11 E. Fairchild St. http://www.sooleychiro.com

Danville, IL 61832-3140 mailto:drgeorge@...

" Let thy food be thy medicine, and thy medicine be thy food. "

--Hippocrates, the Father of Modern Medicine

" A cheerful heart is good medicine... " Prov 17:22a

Get paid for surfing the web! AllAdvantage.com pays you while you

surf the net. It's free to join and it takes about a minute (no survey to

fill out). Just go to http://alladvantage.com/go.asp?refid=BEC162

____________________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

--- " R. Sooley, D.C. " <Drgeorge@...>

wrote:

> I, for one, would like to know exactly what this

> evidence is.

Dear Dr. Sooley,

I'm afraid we can't be more specific at this point,

although we do have good documented evidence that we

are going to use in court.

Jan Bolen - JuriMed

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

As written by Harriot in " A Brief and True Report of the New Found

Land of Virginia " in 1590, upon his visit to document the native american

lifestyle:

" ...The countrye abowt this plase is soe fruit full and good, that England is

not to bee compared to yt...Yet they are moderate in their eatinge wher by

they avoide sicknes. I would to god wee would followe their exemple. For wee

should bee free from many kynes of diseasyes which wee fall into by sumptwous

and unseasonable banketts, continuallye devisinge new sawces, and provocation

of gluttonnye to satisfie our insatiable appetite...They are very sober in

their eatinge, and trinkinge, and consequentlye ferye longe lived because

they doe not oppress nature...And to confesse a truthe I cannot remember,

that ever I saw a better or quietter people then they... "

Yet, " Habitans of one part of great Bretainne, which is nowe nammed

England,.....when they hath overcomme some of their ennemis, they did never

felle to carye a we their heads with them... "

Needless to say, the Southeastern Algonkian Indians are extinct, but I hope

to learn from them...This is the only complete report we now possess on them.

The author goes on to state that the Indians are savage because they do not

know of the white mans' god. He also mentions that into every tribe they

visited, the English bring disease and illness that the tribe and the cheifs

have never seen or know how to treat. The white man allowed the Indian to

think that the god of white man had stricken them for their ignorance of the

' true god', and allowed them to believe that if they did not do as the white

man, that their god would further punish them. The white man knew he carried

many diseases and mentions many times the Indians lack of disease until the

white man came, but felt it was to the benefit of the English to allow such

deceit.

It reminds me of the current state of Corporate American Medicine and the

like. FOGGS