[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.tissues are rejected by the healthy mouse and cannot be success-fully transplanted.Even if Laetrile eliminated one-hundred1.Letter from Dr.Dean Burk to Elliot Richardson, Oct.19,1971, op.cit.2.Press release, HFW/FDA, Sept.1,1971.percent of the cancer, these tumors would be reduced only three38 WORLD WITHOUT CANCER: Part One GENOCIDE IN MANHATTAN 39or four percent at the most.Life extension, not tumor size, is thecases were selected in which the medical records indicated thatonly meaningful test of therapeutic success.Laetrile had been effective.The details were submitted to a panelIn 1973, after months of extensive Laetrile studies on mice, the of twelve cancer specialists for evaluation.Cases involving tradi-Southern Research Institute in Birmingham, Alabama, released a tional therapy were also mixed in, and the panel was notreport of its findings to the National Cancer Institute.The NCI informed which cases received which treatment.Judgment wouldthen announced that these studies once again proved Laetrile had be based only on results.NCI sifted through the Laetrile casesand rejected most of them, so the panel was allowed to reviewno effect in the treatment of cancer.Upon further investigation,only twenty-two.however, all was not as it appeared.Digging into the raw dataHow does one evaluate the success of a cancer treatment? Is itcontained in the report's tables and charts, Dr.Burk discoveredthe length of life? The quality of life? The feeling of well-beingthat there were three groups of mice in the experiment: (1) a largeand absence of pain? The ability to function normally on a dailygroup that received too little Laetrile, (2) another large group thatbasis? All of these are the criteria used by doctors who applyreceived too much, and (3) a small group that received annutritional therapy.They are not concerned with the size of aoptimum dose.Those that received too little died just as quicklytumor because, as stated previously, they know most tumors are aas those in the control group which received none at all.Thosemixture of malignant and benign cells, and that most tumors havethat received too much died sooner than those in the controlonly a small percentage of cancer cells.If Laetrile succeeds ingroup.But those that received the proper dosage survivedremoving 100% of a patient's cancer, his tumor may only decreasesignificantly longer than those that received none at all!by 5% or 10%.But who cares? The patient is back among theIn view of these results, one may wonder how the Nationalliving again.The tumor is not the disease; it is merely theCancer Institute could have said that Laetrile was of no value.symptom of the disease.Here is how it was done.All three groups were lumped into theOrthodox medicine, on the other hand, is totally focused onsame statistics including those which received too little andthe tumor.To most oncologists, the tumor is the cancer.If theythose that received too much.When these large groups wereremove it surgically or burn it away, they happily announce to theadded to the small group that survived significantly longer, theypatient: "Good news.We got it all!" They may have all of thebrought down the average to the point where they honestly couldtumor, but did they get what caused the tumor? And, in thesay that these mice, as a total group), did not survive significantlyprocess, did they dislodge some of those malignant cells, causinglonger than those which had received no Laetrile at all.Thethem to migrate through the circulatory system only to find newstatistics didn't lie.But liars had used statistics.(1)homes elsewhere in the body? Is that the reason so many cancerMeanwhile, the number of recovered cancer patients singingpatients die of metastasized cancer to multiple locations only athe praise of Laetrile continued to grow [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]