Laetrile Facts

By Virginia Hauf

A doctor from the United States FDA once said that Laetrile contains ‘free’ hydrogen cyanide [HCN] and, thus, is toxic. I would like to correct that misconception. There is no ‘free’ hydrogen cyanide [HCN] in Laetrile. When Laetrile comes in contact with the enzyme beta-glycosidase [the cancer cell], the Laetrile is broken down into four molecules:

(a) Two molecules of glucose

(b) One molecule of benzaldehyde

(c) One molecule of hydrogen cyanide [HCN]

Within the body, the cancer cell and only the cancer cell contains that enzyme, beta-glycosidase, therefore, if no cancer is in the body, no hydrogen cyanide can be released.

The key word here is that the HCN must be FORMED. It is not found floating around freely in the Laetrile and then released. It must be manufactured. The enzyme beta-glycosidase, and only that enzyme, is capable of manufacturing the HCN from Laetrile. If there is no beta-glycosidase, no HCN can be formed from the Laetrile.

“Laetrile does contain the cyanide radical [CN]. This same cyanide radical is contained in Vitamin B-12 and in berries such as blackberries, blueberries and strawberries. You never hear of anyone getting cyanide poisoning from B-12 or any of the above-mentioned berries, because they do not. The cyanide radical [CN] and hydrogen cyanide [HCN] are two completely different compounds, just as pure sodium [Na+]--one of the most toxic substances known to mankind--and sodium chloride [NaCl], table salt, are two completely different compounds.”

When the medical community first explored the possibility of using Laetrile as a cancer drug in the 1920s, they discovered that amygdaline secreted cyanide. They just didn’t understand what triggered it, and they were clueless why it was important. Cyanide was, after all, a poison that killed people. That was enough.

Hydrogen cyanide [HCN] is a chemical that kills cancer cells and leaves healthy cells intact. While the NCI found HCN in the patients in the NCCTG study, the FDA, a couple of years later found no evidence that Laetrile contained cyanide. Of course, the FDA tested the Laetrile extract. Cyanide, Dr. Binzel discovered, does not appear until Laetrile comes into contact with a cancer cell. At that point, cyanide is present.

The reason the FDA flip-flops so much on whether or not Laetrile is a toxic element is that when they alleged that Laetrile was toxic in the first Jason Vale hearing, Vale’s lawyers challenged their claim and asked them to present evidence to that fact. The FDA admitted they had none. Nevertheless, they still insist that a minimum lethal dose of HCN is 100 mg per 150 lbs. In 1984 the FDA determined that an apricot seed contains 2.92 mg/g of HCN and a peach pit contains 2.50 mg/g. This is interesting since a later FDA test revealed that Laetrile, the serum form of amygdaline contains no HCN at all, and thus, is worthless as an anticancer agent.

It is clear that the Laetrile debate will continue for the foreseeable future. In the meantime, the pharmaceutical industry continues to test anticancer medicines derived from artificial amygdaline, claiming that it is much safer, and much more stable, than organic amygdaline. It’s a safe bet, however, that before the pharmaceutical industry introduces an effective cancer-fighting amygdaline drug which will cost the consumer much, much more than a bag of apricot seeds, serum and tablet forms of Vitamin B-17 will be regulated by the FDA and Laetrile will be classified as a prescription drug.

The FDA banned vitamin B17 years ago
although it is banned, it is not illegal

You Ask: What's the Difference

What it means is that ~ If any hospital uses laetrile the law says that they jeopardize any grants from the government as well as any monies from Medicaid and other hospital insurance originating from the government. Since nearly all of hospital revenues come from patient insurance, not one hospital in the U.S. will take the chance and use any banned substance including, Amygdaline (also called vitamin B17 and Laetrile.)

Any Doctor, in the United States, that wants to use the substance from apricot pits, must have their patient fill out a form and then the doctor must submit the form to the FDA... Again, doctors don't want to get involved in this and would rather keep their names off of the FDA lists. Additionally, the doctor's malpractice insurance will not be valid if they prescribe laetrile (B17, amygdalin) to a patient. The American Medical Association (AMA) treats any Doctor that prescribes laetrile to be a renegade (traitorous) and that he has violated the AMA's membership policies and will be subject to membership termination. Therefore any Doctor that prescribes laetrile may destroy his career as a Doctor.

Any individual that sells laetrile must not claim that it does anything in his place of business. Many health food stores in the past were raided and had to give up their supplies of B17 because the B17 was near books that claimed that the B17 was the answer to cancer...In other words the books were near the B17 in the stores and was therefore considered "labeling" which is a term used by the FDA. Labeling according to the FDA is against the law and can be prosecuted.

However on the Internet, it is different. Internet law is tricky and not the same as U.S. commercial law. In one case, Ken Kholas took the FDA to court and won his B17 back. That court case proved it wasn't wrong for him to have or to sell it thought it cost Ken's father a tremendous amount of money.

What THIS MEANS TO YOU is that you can purchase, use and have B17 and you will not have violated any law.

ADMINISTRATION OF AMYGDALIN

Slow drip infusion. The most efficacious mode of administration is through the slow-drip infusion technique which was developed in Tijuana, Mexico. It became apparent that the breakdown of amygdalin and its subsequent detoxification was very rapid. If it were to be administered over a longer period of time, this could be overcome. In addition, the amygdalin must pass through many biological membranes in order to reach it site of action. This can be accomplished by combining the amygdalin with Dimethylsulfoxide (DMSO-laboratory grade) or artemether. Finally, as vitamin C is known to slow the growth of tumors, it is added to allow the amygdalin and the rest of the metabolic therapy more time to work.

The amygdalin should be added just prior to injection to insure maximum potency. This complete infusion is administered intravenously over a 2 to 3 hour period, or intamuscular.

More rapid administration can result in a localized burning sensation due to the large amounts of vitamin C. This infusion is administered daily over the first 21 days of metabolic therapy.

Intravenous Injection: In some instance where the slow drip infusion is not practical, intravenous administration of amygdalin can be used. This method provides the same high concentration in the blood as the slow drip infusion. Three vials (3 grams each) are administered daily in a slow intravenous push, usually in the brachial vein just proximate to the elbow. Preferably this administration should be between meals. The intravenous administration should be daily for 21 days.

For treatment: The tablet side is 500 milligrams (mg). Two of these tablets should be given 3 times a day. If patients have difficulty swallowing, the tablets may be broken up and added to the soft food. The patient should take 1 tablet six times a day.

As a preventive: The tablet size is 100mg. One or two tablets should be taken daily.

This data is provided for informational purposes only by Jenny Hauf.

CANCER: What you may Not Have Been Told

"Unless we put medical freedom into the Constitution, the time will come when medicine will organize into an undercover dictatorship ... To restrict the art of healing to one class of men and deny equal privileges to others will constitute the Bastille of medical science. All such laws are un-American and despotic and have no place in a republic ... The Constitution of this republic should make special privilege for medical freedom as well as religious freedom."

Benjamin Rush, M.D., signer of The Declaration of Independence, physician to George Washington.

From THE AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF BENJAMIN RUSH

CANCER: What you may Not Have Been Told

By Jenny Hauf

In 1971, President Richard Nixon declared ‘war on cancer’. Since that time, the US has spent more than one trillion dollars on treatment and research. One trillion dollars! That is one thousand billion US dollars. Unfortunately, the overall death rate from cancer has increased 5% and some cancers have increased several hundred percent.

The very basic concept of cancer is that certain types of cells have gone ‘amuck’ in large numbers. Cancer can be of two types: one benign, which is localized and only causes problems by its location and rate of growth; the second one is malignant, which means it can move from one place to another. We all have cancer cells. I have them; you have them; newborn babies have them. Whether or not these cells will mutate depends on our immune system’s ability to identify these cells as abnormal and kill them.

Cancer is caused by a number of factors. Some of the major factors are chronic stealth infections (microorganisms), chemicals, radiation and strong electromagnetic fields. The microorganisms that cause cancer include adenoviruses, herpes viruses, hepadenoviruses, and the papovaviruses, which contain the, now famous, SV40 virus. The SV40 was found as a contaminant in the polio vaccines during the 60s and 70s and has been shown to cause various types of brain cancers in humans.

Investigating microorganisms as a cause for various cancers is only now being explored. Since 1967, when the US Surgeon General, William H. Stewart, made the statement, “The book is closed on infectious disease,” funding for the investigation of microorganisms, as a causal factor for cancer and other diseases, dried up. The focus was redirected to the research on genetic causes of cancer. Subsequently, billions of dollars went into this research. Ultimately, this new focus and increased revenue has made no appreciable difference to life expectancy or quality of life for any patient. It has not improved or identified viable treatments of cancer or other diseases.

Cancer-causing genes have been knowingly identified through laboratory testing within the medial community. So what? Has this finding made any difference in life expectancy or quality of life? No. It is interesting to note the current biotech industry would not be where it is today without this research and the financial support out of every one of our pockets. Every time we ‘walk for the cure’, hold benefits, and make donations, we are supporting the financial appetite of the problem and not the solution.

Chemicals are another cancer causing agent. In 1990, Eilhu Richter and Jerry Westin of Hebrew University’s Hadassah School of Medicine observed that between 1976 and 1986, Israel was the only country among twenty-eight studied that showed a breast cancer rate drop. Among those twenty-eight, was the United States. The richest, most powerful, and supposedly, most medically advanced country in the world, was out ranked by Israel.

The Israeli researchers were anticipating a 20% rise in breast cancer mortality, consistent with other countries. In fact, they amazingly observed an 8% drop. In the youngest group, instead of a 20% rise, the rate dropped 34%. Statistically, this is a 50% change. This magnitude of change, in the study of cancer, is enormous. The identifiable reason for this drop in mortality rates was attributed to the 1978 ban on three organochloride pesticides: alpha benzene hexachloride, gamma benzene hexachloride (lindane which is typically used for lice treatment), and DDT. There are many studies showing the toxic effects of chemicals. Interestingly, chemical companies have paid for studies that come to the conclusion that chemicals are good. Yet, independent, non-industry organizations show significantly that chemicals are harmful. This, in turn, poses a very important question of whose interests are truly being served.

One of the first forms of cancer treatment was radiation. They began using this form of treatment in the early 1900’s. Hum, the statistics stated earlier says that even as late as 1971 cancer is on the incline not the decline. In more recent years, it has even been proven that radiation is yet another known cancer causing carcinogen, beyond a doubt. Do you see a pattern forming?

ElectoMagnetic Fields (EMF’s) are known to cause cancer. Electricians are ten times more likely than anyone in the general population of developing cancer such as leukemia. Cell towers, cell phones, high power electrical lines and computers have all been named as potential contributors to a cancer diagnosis.

The mechanism as to how cancer becomes established is always the same, oxygen deficiency. Two-time Noble Prize winner for medicine, Otto Warberg, theorized that cancer was caused by the replacement of oxygen with the fermentation of sugar. In an oxygen-deprived state, the normal tissue cells regress in their development and start to behave like bacteria utilizing sugar as their means to get energy. Cancer cells, when they behave like bacteria, lose their growth inhibition. They do not remain anchored to other cells and have an indefinite proliferative life span.

Conventional therapies for the battle against cancer include chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and surgery. Patients need to beware that what their medical doctor shares with them regarding cancer treatments does not present the entire picture. A doctor’s word should not be taken as gospel without further research. In 1978, for example, the Office of Technology Assessment, an arm of the US Congress, issued a major report concluding that only 10-20% of all procedures used in medical practices have been shown to be efficacious by controlled trial. In other words, 80-90% of what doctors implement as treatment is unscientific guesswork. Since then, this study, to my knowledge, has not been repeated, as it would only serve to strengthen the case against these conventional therapies.

The pharmaceutical industry, which is the most profitable industry in the world, has a strong vested interest in what goes on in all countries’ governments, in particular, the industrial nations. On Capitol Hill, Washington DC, there are 625 (my last count) registered lobbyists that are on the pharmaceutical industry payrolls. That equates to more drug lobbyists than senators and congressmen combined. Unfortunately, I have not found similar statistics for Canada, though I have no reason to believe that the situation is much better there. In the US, more than half of the pharmaceutical lobbyists were either former members of congress (21) or worked in congress or other federal agencies (295). Basically, they are ‘hired guns’ to ensure that the interests of the pharmaceutical industry are well served. In the 1999-2000 US federal election $262 million was spent by this industry for political influence. Governments are not immune to the influence of the long arm of the pharmaceutical industry. Pharmaceutical companies are not interested in winning the war on cancer. Their interest lie in waging the war on cancer, not winning the war. Why? In waging a war, maximum profits for pharmaceuticals are guaranteed by those convinced of victory over a bitter enemy, regardless of the evidence to prove otherwise.

Two time Nobel Prize winner Dr. Linus Pauling wrote, “Everyone should know that the war on cancer is largely a fraud.” According to the US National Cancer Institute: a five-year survival rate for cancer for all nationalities was 49% in 1974 to 1975 and 50.7% in 1981 to 1986. This represents merely a 1.7% improvement in thirteen years. However, the 1.7% improvement may be due to earlier diagnosis rather than true survival rates. Overall, from 1947-1984, the incidence of cancer in the general US population grew by 40%.

Over the years, official medicine has poured billions of dollars into radiation, chemotherapy and surgical research as the major weapons in the ‘war on cancer’. The overall cancer death rate has risen by 5% since the war began. (Richard Waters, “Options”, 1993.) Dr. Alan Levin of the University of California Medical School stated, “most cancer patients in this country die of chemotherapy”. According to Dr. John Cairn of the Harvard University School of Public Health, “Only 2-3% of the nearly one-half million Americans diagnosed with cancer every year are being saved by chemotherapy.” In March 1971, a New York Journal of Medicine study found that 10% of 133 patients using the Chemo drug 5FU (5 Flouro Uracil) died as a result of the drug’s toxicity. Some doctors jokingly refer to this drug as ‘5 Feet Under’.

In February 1996, the WHO (World Health Organization) formally designated Tamoxifen as a carcinogen. According to Dr. Samuel Epstien of the University of Illinois, the drug Tamoxifen (commonly used for breast cancer treatment) is “a rip roaring liver carcinogen”. The National Cancer Institute and Zeneca Pharmaceutical lobbied to keep legislators from adding Tamoxifen to its list of carcinogens. (Science News, March 2, 1996). Zeneca’s annual revenues from Tamoxifen were $470 million. Interestingly enough, Zeneca Pharmaceuticals is one of the world’s largest producers of pesticides and industrial chemicals. Zeneca makes the carcinogenic herbicide acetochlor and other chlorine products creating annual revenues of over $300 million on these chemicals.

Acetochlor and all polychlorinated herbicides are estrogen mimickers. The body produces natural estrogen and progesterone in a balanced combination. When estrogen is produced in larger amounts, the body becomes imbalanced and thus potentially puts the body into a compromised condition. This imbalance of hormones can lead to cancer. Tamoxifen is promoted as a form of chemotherapy treatment. Zeneca claims Tamoxifen blocks estrogen mimickers.

Not surprisingly, who would know more about estrogens effects on the body and how to block this than the company who produces estrogen mimickers. Estrogen mimickers on their own have one to one estrogenicity factor. This means that one molecule of estrogen mimicker acts like one molecule of estrogen. Put two estrogen mimickers together and you have a compound that can have an estrogenicity factor of 1600. This means that the effects of two molecules of two estrogen mimickers can act like 1600 molecules of estrogen. It is broadly known that estrogen is a significant cause of breast cancer.

An NCI (National Cancer Institute) study followed 46,355 women and tracked the 2,082 cases of postmenopausal breast cancer that occurred among them. Women on estrogens only were 20% higher risk. Those on both estrogens and progestins had a forty-percent higher risk. A UCLA study found that women who received combined Hormone Replacement Therapy for five to ten years were 51% more likely to develop breast cancer.

Radiation is another weapon in the war against cancer yet radiation is also a major cause of cancer itself. According to internationally respected radiation expert Rosalie Bertells, her research provided evidence that mammography’s cause more cancer than they detect. And regular mammography’s cause cumulative radiation damage not to mention that as a diagnostic tool they are very ineffective.

This crude method will detect cancers that are no less than seven years old. Yet radiation therapy is a cash cow for most cancer therapy hospitals and clinics. Not to mention, most doctors are lavishly treated by pharmaceutical companies with gifts. According to ABC Primetime Thursday night, (Feb 21, 2002) doctors were coerced with $6 billion in parties, gifts and trips to “educate” medical doctors.

Radiation and chemotherapy are toxic substances which in turn can, and do, generate cancer. Adding a poison to kill a poison is not good math for our bodies. Yet government bows to the dictums of industry which supports and promotes these aggressive interventions.

Government institutions are generally against alternative medicine. As an example, the Ontario government proposed deregulation of Naturopathic Medicine in 1982 as one MPP explained, “Naturopathic Doctors are not a threat to the public and do not need to be regulated because since their legislative inception in 1925 they have not killed anyone. Therefore, naturopathic doctors do not need to be regulated.”

In the US, official medicine also stifles alternative medicine. The Office of Alternative Medicine was established within the National Institute of Health and given a mere $2 million research budget. Yet the same year, the National Institute of Health spent $68 million of taxpayers’ money on a single research trial for one drug. One chemical received 34 times more funding than an entire research department that funds non-patentable research.

In conclusion, imagine that your body is the house of your soul and you have been putting garbage in one room in your house for years. Eventually, this garbage finally attracts flies. Flies are like cancer. Chemotherapy and radiation therapy may kill the flies but they also contribute to the garbage. So, if you don’t get rid of the garbage, the flies will come back.

The comments I have made regarding the use of chemotherapy and radiation are mine. Everyone must make their own decision on what they want to put into or expose their body to.

Jenny Hauf

Omega-3 linked to healthy eyes: meta-analysis

By Stephen Daniells

10-Jun-2008 -

A high intake of omega-3 fatty acids and fish may reduce the risk of age-related macular degeneration (AMD) by up to 38 per cent, suggests a new meta-analysis.

Pooling the data from nine studies, researchers from the University of Melbourne in Australia report that the benefits were most pronounced against late (more advanced) AMD, while eating fish twice a week was associated with a reduced risk of both early and late AMD.

The meta-analysis, which included 88,974 participants and 3,203 people with AMD, is published in the June issue of Archives of Ophthalmology.

Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is the leading cause of legal blindness for people over 55 years of age in the Western world, according to AMD Alliance International.

Despite the fact that approximately 25 to 30 million people worldwide are affected by AMD, awareness of the condition is low, according to AMD Alliance International. And as the generation of Baby Boomers gets older, the Alliance expects incidence to be on the rise and triple by 2025.

AMD is a degenerative retinal disease that causes central vision loss and leaves only peripheral vision. Early detection is cited as a means of prevention so that treatment or rehabilitation can be undertaken early enough. However, links to diet have also been underscored.

And since omega-3 fatty acids, and particularly DHA (docosahexaenoic acid), play an important role in the layer of nerve cells in the retina, "a diet rich in omega-3 fatty acids and fish, as a proxy for long-chain omega-3 fatty acid intake, has therefore been hypothesized as a means to prevent AMD," wrote lead author Elaine Chong.

Analysis details

Chong and co-workers searched seven databases to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies. Only nine studies - three prospective cohort, three cross-sectional, three case-control studies - met the inclusion criteria.

Combining the results showed that a high dietary intake of omega-3 EPA was associated with a 23 per cent reduction in the risk of early AMD, whereas DHA was associated with a 30 per cent reduction. A high intake of alpha-linolenic acid (ALA) however was associated with a 49 per cent increase in risk.

"The early AMD definition in this study included vision loss and hence may be more indicative of an intermediate stage of AMD," they stated.

In terms of advanced AMD, the researchers report that a high dietary intake of omega-3 was associated with a 38 per cent reduction in risk. Consuming fish at least twice a week was linked to 24 and 33 per cent reduction in early and late AMD, respectively.

Mechanism

"Our findings are supported by a strong underlying biological rationale," wrote Chong.

Indeed, DHA plays an essential structural role in the membrane of the retina and is found in high concentrations, stated the researchers.

Moreover, "the outer photoreceptor- cell segments of the retina are constantly shed in the normal visual cycle and deficiency of this omega-3 fatty acid may initiate AMD."

"There is also evidence that such long-chain omega-3 fatty acids protect against oxygenic, inflammatory, and age-associated pathology of the vascular and neural retina, which are possible pathogenic factors for AMD development," they added.

The need for clinical trial confirmation

Chong and co-workers report that no randomised clinical trials (RCTs) to date have focussed on the potential of omega-3 fatty acids to reduce the incidence or risk of AMD, and therefore the results of the meta-analysis should be treated with caution.

"As there are currently no published RCTs on the subject, we could not evaluate the wider role of omega-3 fatty acid supplementation in preventing AMD," they stated.

"While our review suggests that consumption of foods rich in omega-3 fatty acids and fish intake twice or more per week may play important roles in the primary prevention of AMD, in the context of the limited literature available, particularly for late AMD and conclusions from other reviews, routine recommendation of omega-3 fatty acid and fish intake for AMD prevention is not warranted until additional information from prospective studies and RCTs emerges," they concluded.

Source: Archives of Ophthalmology

Volume 126, Number 6, Pages 826-833

"Dietary -3 Fatty Acid and Fish Intake in the Primary Prevention of Age-Related Macular Degeneration - A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis"

Authors: E.W.-T. Chong, A.J. Kreis, T.Y. Wong, J.A. Simpson, R.H. Guymer