Alternative Cancer Therapy: A Critical Examination

So he can make some money. No, that's not it at all. He's not even aware of it. He is firmly convinced, most of the doctors today are firmly convinced, that laetrile doesn't work, so why should they use it? Why is he convinced? Because he's read it in the medical journal. to say doctors traditional doctors die of cancer just like everyone else in fact the the rate of cancer among doctors is a little higher than in the normal population and they treat their families with orthodox therapies and also so it's not a question of the the practicing physician making a decision to sacrifice the lives of his patients in order to make some money that's not it at all but at the higher level the system itself within which the doctors work the system that tells him which substances he can use in which ones he cannot use that system is very very corrupt the authorities say that it's not clinically proven scientifically proven what does it take to have a substance proven scientifically? The word proven is a very deceptive word. When somebody says that a substance has not been proven to be effective, the average person listens to that and says, oh, I guess that means it's a hoax. It hasn't been proven, and it's unproven. But in the medical field, Thank you for watching. listens to that and says oh I guess that means it's it's a hoax it hasn't been proven and it's unproven but in the medical field that word has a very special meaning it means that it has gone through the approval process or the scientific study process in the United States is the only country I can speak with a little bit of authority on it's a very expensive process to market a anti-cancer drug today would probably cost about i don't know 80 million dollars and you go through this laboratory process you have all these mice and you're testing this and testing that and you're explaining biological pathways and the paperwork can be many many thousands of pages and you've employed hundreds and hundreds of people doing laboratory work and all that sort of thing very very expensive and the amazing thing is that most of that testing is not to see if it works but to see how toxic it is they're actually spending a great deal of that money to come up with what they call an LD 50 LD 50 stands for lethal dose at 50% of the animals they want to find out what level of this substance will kill 50% of the laboratory animals and that's the LD 50 and then they take everything on that they say okay we will allow the rates of administration lower than LD 50 none of that proves that the substance works but most of the analysis is defined as how toxic it is you see well anyway anybody that goes through that whole process finally walk and walks out the door with a seal and says okay we've now completed the process and now they say this is a proven therapy doesn't necessarily mean it's been proven to be effective it's just been proven to be toxic it's been proven to show at what level it'll kill people that's what it's been proven to be now if you can't afford to go through that process and get that little seal out the door the other side then you can never say this is a proven therapy well with laetrile and so many substances found in nature you cannot patent it anything in nature it cannot be patented and so who therefore can afford to spend 80 million dollars to prove anything about this substance when all of their competitors then could sell it the same as they the bottom line of that is this that everything from nature will always be called unproven because nobody can afford to pay for the process which allows them to say it's been proven that is proven does not mean that it will not work no that's not it at all no as a matter of fact we know from statistical evidence that most people who undergo chemotherapy die so how can you say that's a proven cancer cure it's not proven at all it works in a very small percentage of the cases and even in that small percentage you you wonder did did they live because of the therapy or in spite of it? What did you prove there, that this works or that the patient survived it? I'm more inclined to think that it proves that the patient survived the treatment rather than the treatment saved the patient's life. In your book you describe in great detail how amygdalin works, but has this mechanism ever been disproven? The theoretical mechanism that I describe in the book has never been disproven, and they can't disprove it because it's a well-known mechanism. And so those who oppose the lateral theory never discuss that because they can't. They know that that is sound science. How big is the cancer industry in U.S. dollars globally and in the U.S.? Do you know? I don't know the exact amount, but I have a feeling that the health industry, at least in the United States, represents approximately a fourth of the total gross national product of the industry, of the nation. It could even be higher than that. And within the health industry, that includes drugs and therapies and over-the-counter drugs and and all of that sort of thing it's a huge huge industry what part of that would be cancer I'm going to guess again would be about a third something in that category so we're talking about billions and billions of dollars and much of it is hidden because it it shows up in the form of taxes taxes are used to subsidize research and wouldn't you know that most of the research is spent looking for drugs they always looking for drugs why because drugs are man-made and therefore drugs can be patented and therefore drugs can be marketed at a profit and that's my story the cancer industry the health industry today has a serious serious handicap and that is that it is profit driven and it is not profitable to find a cure for anything it's profitable to treat a disease but it's not profitable to cure disease and so there's that built-in bias to keep the patient coming back coming back more treatment more drugs forever but to cure a person let him walk out the door and be free of drugs and treatment that's not good for the cash flow normally one would get punished if one hurts people but Jason Vale was sent sent to prison. Do you know anything about him? Well, Jason Vale, yes, I know a little bit about Jason. He was sent to prison because he was selling apricot seeds for the control of cancer. Yeah, and he had had cancer himself? He had cancer himself. He believed that he had cured himself and that the amygdalin or the lateral had done it and he was very grateful and very courageous they warned him to stop talking about it and he said I cannot because I have an obligation to other human beings I'm lucky that I'm still alive and therefore I will not stop talking about it and they threw it in prison two more if you were to sum up the activities of the American Cancer Society similar to our local Norwegian Cancer Society what would you say are Are you impressed by their work? I believe that the American Cancer Society is very close in motivation, outlook, and financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry and to orthodox medicine. The American Cancer Society offers itself as being a nonprofit organization raising money to find a cure for cancer but in reality what it really is is a public relations department for Orthodox medicine what the American Cancer Society does is to raise the awareness among the American people of the dangers of cancer and to drive them into their doctor's office for examinations.