First of all, please understand that all that follows is absolutely and
completely the fault of Mr. G. Edward Griffin.
Those of us who have fought for so long to preserve the
God-given rights guaranteed us by our Constitution have, for the most part,
fought a losing battle. Big Government, with its hoards of bureaucrats, has
beaten the "little man" into submission. He must comply with all of
its regulations of his business and his life, or else! Usually, if he fights
Big Government, he loses.
In my attempts to use nutritional therapy, which includes
the use of Laetrile, in the treatment of cancer, I have often been confronted
by the Food and Drug Administration and by the State Medical Board. I have
fought and, through the grace of God, I have won. For several years Ed Griffin
has been after me to write a book. As he put it, "We have won some
victories and the people should know about them." So, this book is being
written to tell about these victories (and to get Ed off of my back). If you
don't like the book or any parts of the book, don't blame me. Blame Ed
Griffin. He made me do it!
The facts in this book are true. The names are real (except
where I say they are not). The dates may not be completely accurate, but they
are as close as I can remember.
You are about to discover that the author of this book is no ordinary doctor.
He is one of those rare birds that is able to leave the flock and fly alone.
He has rejected the comforts and rewards of conformity and has chosen instead
the hard path of integrity. In order to practice medicine as his conscience
dictates, he has literally had to take on the entire medical Establishment.
And, as you will see, it has been an uneven battle. The Establishment hasn't
had a chance.
Dr. Binzel's motive
for writing this book is almost unbelievable in today's world: he simply wants
to share his knowledge so that lives can be saved. At the end of a long and
successful career, he is not seeking to attract patients. In fact, he is now
officially retired. He does consult with patients and their doctors from time
to time, but usually at no charge. His present role is that of pioneer and
Binzel comes from the
small town of Washington Court House, Ohio. He is a classical small-town
doctor, and that's exactly the way he writes. But do not be deceived. He is at
the cutting edge of medical knowledge, and there are few people from the
scientific community — regardless of their impressive credentials — who
are willing to debate with him a second time. His folksy style and
genuine humility are refreshing, but he knows his craft exceedingly well.
The title of this
book, Alive and Well, is appropriate for three reasons. First, there is
the happy record of the patients who have received Dr. Binzel's care. Many of
them previously had been told by their original physicians that there was no
hope for survival, that their cancers were "terminal," and that they
had, at best, only a few more months to live. To them, many years later, the
phrase alive and well has a meaning that only those who have faced
death can fully appreciate.
A second significance
to the title is the fact that the use of Laetrile in the treatment of cancer
is also alive and well—in spite of the fact that it has not been featured in
the national news media since the height of its controversy in the late 1970s.
Because it has not been on the evening news, many people have assumed that the
treatment had been abandoned. As this story demonstrates, however, nothing
could be further from the truth.
Finally, there is the
fact that Dr. Binzel, himself, is alive and well in the sense that he has
survived an incredible barrage of attacks from the medical Establishment.
That, in fact, is an important part of this story. Until one understands the
political power wielded by drug-oriented medicine and how that power is used
against any physician who favors nutritional therapy, it is impossible to
understand why nutritional therapy is not widely available to the general
Dr. Binzel does not
use the word "cured" in describing the condition of his patients who
have returned to normal life after treatment. That is more a question of
semantics than substance. It is true that, once a person has developed
full-blown clinical cancer — even after all their symptoms have vanished —
they will have a greater-than-normal tendency to develop cancer again. That,
however, assumes they return to their original life styles and eating habits.
On the other hand, if they do continue to follow the dietary regimen described
in this book, they will throw off that handicap.
So the question
remains — are they cured? Who cares what word is used if the patient
is alive and well? In orthodox medicine, they often speak of cures, but
the patients are dead! According to the death certificates, they don't die of
cancer, but of heart failure, lung failure, liver failure, or hemorrhage. But
what caused these? They are the secondary effects of their treatments for
cancer. "We got it all," is a common refrain. "I'm happy to
report that we cured him of his disease — just before he died." This is
not really a joke. It is the reality of orthodox cancer therapy.
What you are about to
read is a radical departure from that scenario. Be prepared for a deep breath
of fresh air.
G. Edward Griffin
It was early December, 1977. My office girl, Ruthie Coe, called me on my
intercom to tell me that I had a phone call from a Mr. Robert Bradford in
California. She wanted to know if I wanted to take the call now or to call him
back. I had known Bob Bradford for about three years. He was the head of an
organization known as The Committee for Freedom of Choice in Cancer Therapy. I
had done several seminars on nutrition with him. I told Ruthie that I would
take the call now.
Bob told me that the Food and Drug Administration (The FDA)
had filed suit in Federal Court to prohibit the importation of Laetrile into
this country because it was toxic. He said that he had found an eminent
toxicologist, Dr. Bruce Halstead, who was willing to testify against the FDA,
but he also needed a practicing physician who had used Laetrile and wanted to
know if I would testify. I told him I would. Bob told me that the hearing
would be in Oklahoma City in the court of Judge Luther Bohanon in about ten or
I called our local travel agency and asked them to get
airplane reservations for my wife, Betty, and me. I knew without talking to
her that Betty would not want to miss out on the fun! The girl from the travel
agency called me back in a few minutes. She said that she had no problem
getting us a flight into Oklahoma City, but a big problem getting us
out of Oklahoma City. The hearing was, I believe, to be on a Thursday. I
wanted to arrive sometime on Wednesday afternoon. Not knowing how long the
hearing would take on Thursday, I thought that if we planned to leave on
Friday morning, that would work out well. The problem with the airlines was
that the University of Oklahoma and all the colleges around the area were
starting their Christmas vacation on that Friday. There were no seats
available on any airline going in our direction until the following Monday.
The last plane leaving Oklahoma City going in our direction that had any space
was a three o'clock flight on Thursday afternoon. I took those reservations.
Betty and I flew out of Columbus, Ohio to St. Louis. There
we changed to a flight to Oklahoma City. On our flight to Oklahoma City
(coach, of course), I noticed that there were only three men flying first
class. At that time, I don't think the word "clone" had been
invented. If it had, these three men certainly could have been described as
clones of each other. They were all about the same height, weight, hair color,
and all had the same haircut. They all had the same sallow complexion, wore
the same black suits and maroon ties, and they all carried the same type of
Early the next morning Bob Bradford, Dr. Halstead, Betty
and I met with the attorney, Mr. Ken Coe, (no relation to my office girl,
Ruthie Coe). I told Mr. Coe of our predicament with our airline schedule. He
assured me that he would discuss this with the Judge and do whatever he could
While we were sitting there, Mr. Coe received a phone call.
It seems that there had been a young girl in New York who, some months before,
had gotten hold of a bottle of Laetrile pills belonging to her father and had
taken an unknown quantity of these. She was taken to a hospital and a number
of blood tests were done over the next two days. The girl exhibited no
symptoms, but, for whatever reason, on the third day the doctors decided to
give her the antidote to cyanide. The girl died the following day.
From what I know, the FDA had contacted the girl's mother
and wanted her to testify about the toxicity of Laetrile. She had refused but
said, instead, that she would testify against the FDA. She had flown out of
New York early that Thursday morning and was due to arrive in Oklahoma City
about nine o'clock. It was she who was calling to let us know that about two
or three hundred miles out of New York someone on the plane had a heart
attack. The plane turned around and went back to New York. She was not going
to be able to get to Oklahoma City. Mr. Coe said, "We'll go with what
We arrived in the court room shortly before nine o'clock.
The first thing that I noticed were the three "clones" I had seen on
the airplane the day before. They were the FDA attorneys. Why were there three
of them? A friend of mine explained that to me sometime later. He said that,
in case they lose, each attorney always puts the blame on the other two! The
thing that bothered me the most was that Betty and I had to pay our own air
fare, and we flew coach. My taxes were paying their air fare, and they flew
Judge Bohanon entered the court room. Mr. Coe, as promised,
immediately asked for and received permission to approach the bench. He
explained to the Judge the problem that Betty and I had with airline
reservations. Judge Bohanon very kindly agreed to change the usual procedure
and to allow the defense to present its case first.
I testified first. Responding to Mr. Coe's questions, I
stated that I had used Laetrile both by mouth and by intravenous injection on
several hundred patients, and that I had not experienced any toxic reaction in
any of those patients. On cross-examination the FDA attorney asked me if I was
familiar with the term "agmpxyztpwrquos" (or something like that). I
said, "No." He then asked if I was familiar with the term "mvchrtonlxty"
(or something like that). Again, I said, "No." I was then dismissed
from the witness stand. To this day, I do not know the meaning of the two
terms. The FDA attorney never gave the definitions. I had never heard the
terms before and have never heard them since. I am not sure that they didn't
just make up two terms to see if I would bite.
Dr. Halstead then took the stand. He carried with him a
book which he put in his lap. Under direct questioning from Mr. Coe, Dr.
Halstead explained how all substances known to man can be toxic. He showed
that while some oxygen is necessary to maintain life, too much oxygen can be
fatal. He went through the same procedure with water, salt, and other
substances. He then showed that aspirin, sugar and salt were,
milligram-for-milligram, more toxic than Laetrile. He further pointed out that
chemotherapeutic agents which are commonly used in the treatment of cancer
are, milligram-for-milligram, hundreds of times more toxic than Laetrile.
On cross-examination, the FDA attorney asked Dr. Halstead
to give the toxicity figure for some substance (I don't remember what the
substance was). Dr. Halstead said, pointing to the book in his lap but never
opening it, "On page 311, Table 2, in this book you will find that the
toxicity of that substance is .... "(whatever it was). The FDA attorney
then named another substance and asked for its toxicity figure. Dr. Halstead
answered, "On page 419, Table 3 shows it to be .... "(whatever it
was). The attorney tried a third time. Again, Dr. Halstead came up with the
page number, table number and toxicity.
The three FDA attorneys-stared at each other for a minute,
then one of them said, "How do you know all of this?" Dr. Halstead
calmly replied, "Because I wrote the book." "Impossible!"
yelled the attorney. Without saying a word, Dr. Halstead took the book from
his lap and handed it to Judge Bohanon. The Judge opened the book to its first
page and read the following, "Textbook of Toxicology, written by Dr.
Bruce Halstead, as commissioned by the Food and Drug Administration of the
United States." The Judge said to the FDA attorneys, "You fellows
should have known that. You didn't do your homework very well." The FDA
attorneys had enough of Dr. Halstead. They dismissed him from the stand.
When Mr. Coe informed Judge Bohanon that the defense had
concluded its testimony, the Judge turned to the FDA attorneys and said,
"The court is now prepared to hear your witnesses and view your
evidence." One FDA attorney replied, "Your Honor, we don't have
any." The rest of the dialogue went like this:
Judge: "You are telling me that you have filed suit
in this court that Laetrile is toxic, and you don't have a single witness or
a shred of evidence to support such a suit?" Attorney: "That is
correct, Your Honor." Judge: "Then why have you filed such a
Attorney: "Because, Your Honor, Laetrile may be
Judge: "Dangerous to whom?"
Attorney: "Dangerous to the Federal Government, Your
Judge: "How could Laetrile possibly be dangerous to
the Federal Government?"
Attorney: "Because, Your Honor, the Government may
With this the Judge, now obviously angered, slammed down
his gavel and said, "Case dismissed!"
As Mr. Coe, Dr. Halstead, Bob Bradford, Betty and I left
the court house, we saw a six-foot by four-foot poster on the wall in the
lobby. It read in large letters, "BEWARE OF LAETRILE! IT IS TOXIC!"
At the bottom, in small print, was the statement, "Must be posted in all
Government buildings by order of the Food and Drug Administration of the
Is it possible that the FDA was lying to the people?
So, how did a Family Physician from a small town in Ohio ever get involved in
a conflict with the FDA in the first place? If you read the Preface, you
already know the answer. It was the fault of Mr. G. Edward Griffin.
In 1973 I was in the
family practice of medicine in Washington Court House, Ohio. I had graduated
from St. Louis University School of Medicine in 1953. I did one year of
internship and one year of Family Practice residency at Christ Hospital in
Cincinnati. In 1955 I began my private practice as a Family Physician in
Washington Court House. I was very content with what I was doing until the day
a friend of mine, Mr. Charles Pensyl, invited me and a number of others to his
camera shop to see a new film that he had just gotten. The title of the film
was World Without Cancer.
World Without Cancer ran
about fifty minutes. It was about a substance called Laetrile and what this
substance could do to help people who had cancer. I took a very dim view of
this movie because I felt that it made many statements for which there was no
supporting medical evidence. The film was produced and narrated by G. Edward
This caused an
immediate problem. As a long time member of the John Birch Society, I had read
almost everything that Ed Griffin had written. I had read his book, The
Fearful Master, A Second Look at the United Nations. I had read numerous
articles written by him in the magazine American Opinion. He had
produced some films, The Grand Design and More Deadly Than War. All
of these, I knew, had been researched extremely well.
To compound the
problem, I knew Ed personally. From 1968 through 1972, I served as the doctor
for the John Birch Society Youth Camps in Michigan and Indiana. Betty was my
assistant. In the first camp that we did, Ed Griffin was the closing speaker.
He was to speak on Friday night. He came into camp on Thursday. The staff of
the camp was housed in one building. It was the custom of the staff to get
together after "lights out" for the campers to discuss the various
"opportunities" that had presented themselves that day. (Please note
that there was no such thing as a "problem." These were
"opportunities.") Ed Griffin attended both the Friday night and
Saturday night sessions. I got to know him very well and was impressed with
his depth of knowledge on a wide range of subjects.
So, you can see my
problem. I didn't think the film Worm Without Cancer was medically
accurate, but it was produced and narrated by a man for whom I had the highest
respect. I had the feeling he knew something that I didn't know. I felt he
would not have produced the film if there was not a great deal more behind
this than he was able to show in a fifty-minute film. For three months I
vacillated, being sure one minute he was wrong and suspecting the next minute
that he just might be right.
Finally, I decided
that this mental turmoil had to be resolved. I had a good friend, Steve
Michaelis, who was a pharmacist. I called Steve to see what he knew about this
"Laetrile." He was far ahead of me. He told me he had done an
in-depth study of Laetrile some months earlier and was convinced that it had
merit. He suggested that I contact a group known as The Committee for Freedom
of Choice in California. I did. I told the young lady who answered the phone
about my doubts about this whole thing, but, if there was information
available, I would study it with an open mind.
Within a week, I
received a package of material about six inches thick from The Committee for
Freedom of Choice. It contained reprints of articles published by Dr. Ernst
Krebs, Jr., Dr. Dean Burk of this country, Dr. Hans Nieper of Germany, Dr.
Ernesto Contreras of Mexico, Dr. Manuel Navarro of the Philippines, Dr.
Shigeaki Sakai of Japan and others. Most of these articles had been published
in foreign medical journals and had been translated and reprinted. Some of
these articles dated back to the early 1950's. It took me eight months to go
through and fully understand the significance of what these men had done.
From the time that
cancer was first diagnosed (some three hundred to five hundred years ago) to
the present, most members of the medical profession have treated this disease
using the theory that the tumor is the disease. This theory said that, if you
can remove the tumor or destroy the tumor, you will cure the disease. Drs.
Krebs, Burk, Nieper, and others said in essence, "Wrong!" These
men had seen thousands of cancer patients die. They realized that ninety-five
per cent of these patients had their tumors treated with surgery, and/or
radiation, and/or chemotherapy. It was obvious to them that, if removing the
tumor or destroying the tumor cured the disease, ninety-five percent of these
people would be alive and well. It was, therefore, equally obvious to them
that removing the tumor or destroying the tumor did not cure the disease. This
meant, of course, that the tumor was not the cause of the disease but
was merely a symptom of the disease.
Let me compare this
with appendicitis. The patient with appendicitis complains of pain. The pain
is a symptom of this disease. I can give that patient enough morphine or
Demerol to stop the pain. Do I then say to the patient, "Your pain is
gone. You're cured!" No! I know that the pain will come back, because I
have done nothing to correct the condition within the body that is causing the
pain. I have to remove the infected appendix in order to treat the cause.
These researchers used this same line of reasoning — they said, if you just
remove the tumor and don't treat the condition within the body that allowed
the tumor to develop in the first place, the tumor will come back. Of course,
they are right! The tumor almost always comes back.
These men dug deeper.
While each was working independently, they were all happy to share any of
their findings with anyone who would listen. One would find something and send
it to the others. One would add something to that and send it on. The result
of all of this work was that these men found that the body does have a normal
defense against cancer, and they were able to describe how that defense
They found that the
cancer cell is coated with a protein lining, and that it was this protein
lining (or covering) that prevented the body's normal defenses from getting to
the cancer cell. They found that, if you could dissolve the protein lining
from around the cancer cell, the body's normal defenses, the leukocytes (white
blood ceils), would destroy the cancer cell. They found that the dissolving of
the protein lining (or covering) from around the cancer cell was done very
nicely within the body by two enzymes: trypsin and chymotrypsin. These enzymes
are secreted by the pancreas. Thus, they said that the enzymes trypsin and
chymotrypsin formed the body's first line of defense against cancer.
What's an enzyme? I
just knew you were going to ask! An enzyme is a catalyst. What's a catalyst?
Back in your high school chemistry you were taught the definition of a
catalyst. I'm sure that none of you have forgotten that definition. Just in
case that definition has (only momentarily, of course) escaped your memory, it
is as follows: A catalyst is a substance which causes a chemical reaction to
take place without, itself, becoming a part of that chemical reaction. See, I
knew you would remember! There are numerous enzymes within the body that are
responsible for the hundreds of chemical reactions which must take place in
order to keep the body functioning normally. You have now completed Physiology
In addition to
finding that trypsin and chymotrypsin formed the body's first line of defense
against cancer, Dr. Krebs et al. found that the body has a second line
of defense against this disease. This second line of defense is formed by a
group of substances known as nitrilosides. The cancer cell has an enzyme,
beta-glucosidase, which, when it comes in contact with nitrilosides, converts
those nitrilosides into two molecules of glucose, one molecule of benzaldehyde
and one molecule of hydrogen cyanide. Originally, it was thought that only the
hydrogen cyanide was toxic to the cancer cell. Recent evidence has shown that,
while the hydrogen cyanide may exert some toxic effect, it is the benzaldehyde
that is extremely toxic to the cancer cell.
What is so
significant about this is that this is a target-specific reaction. Within the
body, the cancer cell and only the cancer cell contains the enzyme
beta-glucosidase. Thus, the benzaldehyde and the hydrogen cyanide can be
formed in the presence of the cancer cell, and only the cancer cell.
Thus, they are toxic to the cancer cell and only the cancer cell. The normal
cell contains the enzyme, rhodanese, which converts the nitrilosides into
found that all of us probably have cancer many times in our lives. If our
defense mechanisms are functioning normally, the body kills off the cancer
cells, and we're never even aware that it happened. If, however, there is a
breakdown in that defense mechanism when the cancer cells appear, there is
nothing to prevent the growth of those cancer cells and soon there is a tumor.
What causes a
breakdown in that defense mechanism? Suppose you have an individual who is
eating large quantities of animal protein. It takes large amounts of the
enzymes trypsin and chymotrypsin to digest animal protein. It is possible that
this individual is using up all, or almost all, of his trypsin and
chymotrypsin for digestive purposes. There is nothing left over for the rest
of the body. Thus, this individual has lost his first line of defense against
individual has little or no nitrilosides in his diet. This is quite possible.
Millet, which is very high in nitrilosides, used to be the staple grain. We
went from millet to wheat, which contains no nitrilosides. Our cattle used to
graze and eat large quantities of grasses, which are high in nitrilosides. Now
we grain-feed our cattle. There are no nitrilosides in the grain.
So, you now have an
individual who, because of his high intake of animal protein, has lost his
first line of defense against cancer and who, because of his low intake of
nitrilosides, has no second line of defense against cancer. Should cancer
cells appear at this time, there is nothing to prevent their growth. The
As Krebs et al. then
pointed out, you can remove the tumor, but, if you do not correct the defects
in that individual's defense mechanisms, that tumor will come back.
This means that you
must markedly reduce the intake of animal protein in these people and replace
it with vegetable protein. Vegetable protein requires nothing in the way of
the enzymes trypsin and chymotrypsin for digestion. Thus, you can free these
enzymes from being used up for digestive purposes, put them back into the body
and re-establish the body's first line of defense against cancer.
It means that you
must also restore the body's second line of defense against cancer by
establishing an adequate level of nitrilosides in these individuals. While
there are some 1,500 foods that contain nitrilosides, the researchers found
that the most rapid way to build up the nitriloside level was by the use of
Laetrile. They did not proclaim Laetrile as a "miracle drug" or a
"cancer cure" but merely described it as a concentrated form of
nitrilosides, which was able to rapidly raise the nitriloside level and to
re-establish the body's second line of defense against cancer.
Perhaps the thing
that impressed me most in this large volume of material that I was trying to
assimilate, was that all of these researchers stressed the point that cancer
was a multiple-variable disease. One of the problems with those of us in the
medical profession is that we are used to looking at chronic metabolic
diseases (diseases which start within the body, such as diabetes, scurvy,
pernicious anemia, pellagra, and cancer) as single-variable diseases. For
example, in diabetes, the single-variable deficiency is insulin. In scurvy,
it's Vitamin C, and in pernicious anemia, it's B12. Cancer is a
multiple-variable deficiency disease.
showed that there can be a number of deficiencies within the cancer patient.
This, they said, did not mean that all cancer patients had all of these
deficiencies, but that any given cancer patient could have six, or eight or
ten of these deficiencies. They found, for example, that zinc was the
transportation mechanism for the nitrilosides. They found that you could give
Laetrile until it came out of the ears of the patient, but, if that patient
did not have a sufficient level of zinc, none of the Laetrile would get into
the tissues of the body. They also found that nothing heals within the body
without sufficient Vitamin C. They found that manganese, magnesium, selenium,
Vitamin B, Vitamin A, etc., all played an important part in maintaining the
body's defense mechanisms. The most important thing they stressed was that,
unless you correct all of these deficiencies, you are not going to help
that patient. Thus, they were talking about a total nutritional program. They
were talking about a program that consisted of diet, vitamins, minerals,
enzymes and Laetrile.
Doc on the Block
After having spent those eight months studying all of the material sent to me
by The Committee for Freedom of Choice, I still was not completely convinced
that this nutritional approach to the treatment of cancer would actually work.
I called my
pharmacist friend, Steve Michaelis, and learned that Lawrence P. McDonald,
M.D., in Atlanta, Georgia, was actively using this form of treatment. I did
not know Larry McDonald at that time, but I knew of him. I knew that he was a
member of the National Council of the John Birch Society and was a renowned
urologist in Atlanta. (This was, of course, the same Rep. Lawrence P.
McDonald, Member of Congress, who was on the KAL Flight 007 when it was shot
down.) Steve Michaelis knew him very well. Steve called him to let him know
that I would be calling.
When we finally
talked, Larry could not have been nicer. We discussed at some length the
program that he was using. My final question was, "Does it work?"
Larry's reply to me was, "If it didn't work, I wouldn't be using
While Larry certainly
gave me a push in the right direction, my final decision did not come until I
could answer the question, "If I had cancer, or my wife had cancer, or
one of my children had cancer, how would I have this treated?" I realized
that my answer was, "I'd go with nutritional therapy." It was at
that point that I decided to treat my patients with the same method.
Several weeks before
I had reached that decision, a very good friend of mine had asked me if I
would be willing to give Laetrile to his sister-in-law. This was a hopeless
case. The woman had cancer of the breast. In spite of, or maybe because of
(depending on your point of view), all the surgery, radiation and chemotherapy
that had been done to this woman, she had developed metastases to the liver,
lungs and brain. She had been sent home from a Columbus, Ohio hospital and
told that she would die within a week or two. She became my first patient. I
wish I could say that she lived happily thereafter. She didn't. But she did
live for about four months with a minimal amount of pain and suffering.
Within a week after I
started treating this first patient, I began to get calls from cancer patients
all around this part of the country asking if I would treat them. To this day,
I have no idea how those people knew that I was involved in nutritional
therapy. I never asked, and they never said.
Most of my first
patients were those who had all of the surgery, radiation and chemotherapy
they could tolerate and their tumors were still growing. I did for these
patients the best that I knew to do.
My biggest problem at
this time was understanding nutrition. In four years of medical school, one
year of internship and one year of Family Practice residency, I had not had
even one lecture on nutrition. How to use the Laetrile, the vitamins and the
enzymes was no problem. How to instruct these people on proper nutrition was a
big problem. If you know very little about nutrition yourself, how are you to
instruct your patients? Simply giving them a diet sheet and saying, "Eat
this, but don't eat that," doesn't work. In my years of working with
patients with weight problems, I had learned that you never hand a patient a
diet sheet. You must explain to the patient why it is necessary to eat certain
things and to avoid other things. Once the patient understands this, you then
have the patient's full cooperation.
After a few months of
using this nutritional program, I was invited by The Committee for Freedom of
Choice in Cancer Therapy (and I have no idea how they knew I was using
nutritional therapy) to participate in some seminars on nutrition. It was hem
that I first met Dr. Ernst Krebs. After listening to him for a few minutes, I
realized that this man knew more about nutrition then anyone I had ever met.
To say that I
presumed on this man's good nature would be the under-statement of the
century. I told him what I was doing and how little I knew about nutrition.
usually lasted for three days and two nights. Dr. Krebs invited me to his room
after the first evening's meeting. I was them until the wee hours of the
morning and there again until the wee hours of the following morning learning
about nutrition. When I think back on all of the stupid questions that I
asked, I cannot understand why Dr. Krebs did not bodily pick me up and throw
me out of his room. But, I was beginning to learn nutrition.
The second seminar
was only a few weeks after the first. Betty was with me on this trip. We
started somewhere in the Cleveland area and then flew to St. Louis to do
another. Each night Betty, Dr. Krebs and I would get together in Dr. Krebs'
room and my education of nutrition would continue.
These seminars went
on for several more months. Through the great patience of Dr. Krebs, I became
much more comfortable in trying to explain good nutrition to my patients.
When I started using
this nutritional approach, I had no preconceived ideas of whether it would or
would not work. I went into it with a completely open mind. I had decided to
try it for one year. If it worked, fine, I would keep it up. If it didn't
work, I wouldn't do it any more.
The first thing that
I became aware of was that, within a matter of a few weeks, many of the
patients were "feeling better." They had less pain and were eating
better. While I was not sure that the treatment had added anything to the
quantity of the life of these patients, I was sure that it had added something
to the quality of their lives.
Some of the most
beautiful letters that I have received have come from the relatives of
patients who have died. They described how wonderful it was that their mother
(or sister or brother or wife) had been free of pain and had been able to die
comfortably at home rather than in a hospital.
That was encouraging,
so I continued. Toward the end of that first year I noticed something else. I
realized that a number of the patients that I had seen, who were supposed to
die within a few months, were still alive. True, they still had their disease,
but they were still alive! Some of them were now up and around and
participating in family activities. Some were, once more, working in their
flower beds. So, again, I continued.
At this point let me
interrupt the story and define the terms "primary cancer" and
"metastatic cancer." Primary cancer is cancer in one
place in the body. The usual progression of this disease is that it spreads
into other areas of the body. When the disease spreads from its primary site
into other areas, it is called metastatic cancer.
Sorry about the
interruption, but it was necessary. Now, back to our story.
My biggest surprise
came at the end of my third year. At that time I sat down and went through all
of the records of all of the patients that I had on this nutritional program.
To my amazement, I found that not one single one of the patients that I had
seen with primary cancer had developed metastatic disease. With
"orthodox" treatment, by this time, most of them should have. This
was when I knew that I had something!
You would think that
a small town doctor working with a few cancer patients and a relatively new
approach to the treatment of cancer, would be ignored and left alone. Right?
To the best of my knowledge, there was no law in the State of Ohio which would
prevent me from using Laetrile. I had checked with several attorney friends. I
had asked them to see what the law was. They reported that there were no laws
in the State of Ohio regarding the use of Laetrile.
I called the Ohio State
Medical Association. A woman answered the phone. Our conversation went
something like this:
"I would like to know the
present legal status of Laetrile in Ohio."
"Laetrile is illegal,"
I was told.
"If Laetrile is illegal,
there must be some statute which says it is illegal. Would you please give me
that statute number so that my attorney can look it up for me."
illegal," I was told again.
"Yes, I understand that,
but what is the statute number that makes it illegal?"
"Laetrile is illegal,"
I was told for the third time.
"You have told me that
three times now, but you have not given me the precise law that makes it
"Well, it is not approved
by the FDA," was the reply this time.
"Does that make it
"Why, then, did you tell
me three times that it was illegal?"
"Because that was what I
was told to say if anyone inquired about Laetrile," was her reply.
You can imagine my surprise
(shock would be more like it) when, in the Fall of 1976, I received a
certified letter from the Medical Board of the State of Ohio requiring me to
appear, two weeks hence, before that Board for a hearing because I was using
Laetrile. The first thing I did was call The Committee for Freedom of Choice
in California. I do not remember with whom I spoke, but it was probably Bob
Bradford. The advice I was given was to contact an attorney by the name of Mr.
Mr. Kell was the attorney who
defended Dr. John Richardson in his long and difficult legal battles with the
State of California over the use of nutritional therapy and Laetrile. The
story of Dr. John Richardson, and his fight for the rights of his patients to
choose the type of treatment they wanted, became a best-selling book entitled Laetrile
Case Histories1. In my opinion, Dr.
John Richardson is one the great heroes of medicine.
Because of his work with Dr.
Richardson, George Kell was probably the most knowledgeable attorney in the
country at that time on the subject of nutrition and Laetrile. I called Mr.
Kell and we talked at some length. He told me some things that I should do and
some things not to do. He told me a number of things that my attorney should
and should not do. Finally he said, "The best thing to do is for me to be
Among other things, Mr. Kell
had recommended that, in the two weeks time that we had, we contact as many of
my patients as possible and ask these patients to write to the State Medical
Board on my behalf. For the next five days and nights we did exactly that. I
had two telephone lines coming into my office. My office girl, Ruthie Coe,
(without additional pay, bless her heart) and I would return to my office
every night and make telephone calls until about 10:00 P.M. Meanwhile, Betty,
having a list of her own, was making calls from our home. The response was
overwhelming! I do not know how many letters actually went into the State
Medical Board. I do know that there were some forty or fifty patients who were
kind enough to send me copies of the letters they had written. The ground
work, as directed by Mr. Kell, had been laid.
The hearing was scheduled for
a Thursday morning. George Kell arrived at the Columbus, Ohio airport about
10:30 P.M. the night before. Until the wee hours of the morning we stayed up
and discussed strategy. Mr. Kell explained to me that he would attempt to make
the Medical Board angry at him, thus taking their anger away from me.
During the hearing, Mr. Kell
was extremely successful in doing just that. On at least four occasions he
said to the members of the Board, "If you decide to take this matter to
court, you will have me to deal with." As things turned out, it became
obvious that the Medical Board of the State of Ohio did not wish to deal with
Mr. George Kell. For his wonderful performance, I am eternally grateful to
For those who are wondering
how much it cost to bring in an attorney from California to defend me, let me
say that Mr. Kell's charge was extremely reasonable. He charged me only
for his air fare (coach, of course) and for his time before the Medical Board.
This came to about $700. There are still some people on this earth to whom
principle is more important than money. George Kell is one of those people.
Several months went by before
I heard anything from the State Medical Board. Then, an Enforcement Officer of
the Board, as he called himself, appeared in my office without an appointment
and insisted that I see him immediately. As soon as I finished with the
patient at hand, I did see him. He wanted to know if I was still using
Laetrile. I assured him that I was. He told me that the Medical Board wanted
to take away my medical license. I told him I knew that, but, in order for
them to do so, they would have to go through the courts. I told him I would
insist on a jury trial, and that I would parade before the jury all of the
patients who had written letters to the Medical Board. He said, "Oh, no,
no, no! We don't want to get involved in anything like that." I assured
him that was exactly what the Board would become involved in, and that they
would again be confronted by Mr. George Kell.
At this point he backed down.
We discussed a few irrelevant things. Then he said, "I just want you to
know that the State Medical Board is not happy with what you are doing."
I said to the Enforcement Officer, "I was not placed on this earth to
please the State Medical Board. I was placed on this earth to please God. I
know that the nutritional program I am using adds far more to the quality and
quantity of life of the cancer patient than anything offered by orthodox
medicine. Therefore, I am obligated to God to do what I know to be right.
Whether the State Medical Board agrees or disagrees is
not important. It is important only that I do what pleases God,
because, at my death, I will be judged by God and not by the State Medical
Except for a letter in 1978,
that was the last that I heard from the Medical Board of the State of Ohio for
fourteen years (until 1990). I'll tell you about that later.
1See Laetrile Case Histories; The
Richardson Cancer Clinic Experience, by
John A. Richardson, M.D., and Patricia Griffin, R.N., B.S. Originally
published by American Media and later by Bantam. The book is currently out
My first confrontation with the FDA came when Patrick Mahoney, a long time
friend, who was then working for Birch Research Corporation, contacted me.
Part of Patrick's job was to review all major newspapers and government
documents and to file any information which may at sometime be of any news
value. Patrick had run across a notice in the Federal Register which
said that there were going to be Administrative Hearings on Laetrile in Kansas
City, Missouri, on May 2-3, 1977. According to the notice, anyone who wished
to speak for or against Laetrile was to write to the given address and ask for
time to present testimony. At Patrick's urging, I wrote to that address and
asked for fifteen minutes.
I really had no idea
what this was all about. But, by this time, I had three years of experience
using Laetrile as a part of a total nutritional program. I knew that it was
part of what was necessary to improve the quality and quantity of life of many
cancer patients. Again, I felt that I had a moral obligation to present my
findings at that Administrative Hearing, so Betty and I went. It wasn't until
after we got there that I fully understood what was going on.
In early 1977, Mr.
Glen L. Rutherford from Oklahoma City developed cancer. He chose to go to
Mexico for the treatment of his cancer because they were using a nutritional
program that included Laetrile. A few weeks later, when Mr. Rutherford
returned to the United States, his Laetrile was confiscated when he crossed
the border. This was done by Government order. Mr. Rutherford then filed suit
in Federal Court against Joseph A. Califano, Secretary of Health, Education
and Welfare and against Donald Kennedy, Commissioner of the Food and Drug
Administration et al. for the right to have his Laetrile. This I know
to be true because I have the court record. What follows I do not know to be
true because I was not there, but I will relate the story to you as it was
told to me by those who were there.
The trial between Mr.
Rutherford and the Government went on for several weeks. Federal Judge Luther
Bohanon presided. Each day the FDA attorneys would tell the court that the FDA
had hundreds and hundreds of studies that proved that Laetrile would not work.
Toward the end of the trial Judge Bohanon said to the FDA attorneys,
"Tomorrow, when you come into court, I want you to bring with you all of
these studies that have been done by the FDA on Laetrile."
morning, when the trial began again, the Judge asked for the studies. The FDA
attorneys said, "Your Honor, we did not bring the studies because they
are so scientific that we don't think you can understand them." This, as
you can well imagine, did not please the Judge. He insisted that all of the
studies must be in his court room the following morning.
The next morning
there were no studies. When the Judge asked why, the FDA attorneys said the
studies were so voluminous they were not sure that all of the studies would
fit in his court room. The Judge then stated that, if necessary, he would
empty the entire court house, but he wanted all of those studies in his
court the following morning.
The following morning
there were no studies. Again, the Judge asked why. The FDA attorney said very
simply, "Because, Your Honor, there are no studies." Of course, the
Judge was irate. The FDA attorneys explained that each evening after the trial
they would call Washington. Each evening the Washington office of the FDA
would assure the attorneys that they had all of these studies. When the
attorneys finally pinned down the Washington office, they said that they had
done no studies at all on Laetrile. This was when Judge Bohanon called for
In truth, as time has
gone on, I have found much evidence to make me believe that the FDA had,
indeed, done a great many studies on Laetrile. The problem was they apparently
had found that — when properly used with other vitamins, minerals, enzymes
and diet — Laetrile could be very beneficial to many cancer patients. There
was no way the FDA was going to admit this! For more than fifteen years they
had been saying that Laetrile was of no value. To come out now and say that
they had been wrong was unthinkable. The fuss and furor that would have come
from the people of this country would have been tremendous. Congress, rapidly,
would have been forced to do away with the FDA. To the government, this would
have been a terrible loss. After all, the "most important" function
of any government bureaucracy is to perpetuate itself. It is my opinion, and
only an opinion, that it was easier for the FDA to say that they had done no
studies than to reveal what their studies had actually shown. It was far less
dangerous to go through Administrative Hearings than to admit that they were
Hearings were something else. Of the perhaps two hundred to three hundred
people who were there, almost all were pro-Laetrile. There were, of course,
many doctors from the FDA who testified against Laetrile. The thing I remember
most about these hearings was that, shortly before I testified, a doctor from
the FDA testified that if you open a vial of Laetrile, it must be done in a
large room with all of the windows open and that everyone in the room must
wear a gas mask. Otherwise, he said, everyone would die from the cyanide fumes
from that vial of Laetrile. Shortly thereafter I testified that I had opened
some four thousand vials of Laetrile. I stated that I had opened them in a
small room with all of the windows closed and that neither I, nor any of my
staff, had worn a gas mask. I assured the Administrative Judge that I, and all
of my staff, were alive and quite well.
Judge was sitting to my right and behind me. I could not see him while I was
testifying. According to those in the audience who could see him, he obviously
became quite angry and turned very red in the face. He had allowed some of
those testifying for the FDA to run overtime with their testimony. Just as
soon as my time was up, he banged his gavel and said sternly, "Your time
is up!" I assured him that I would be finished in less than a minute.
Down came the gavel again, and again he said angrily, "Your time is
up!" I had a typewritten copy of my full testimony, which I then gave to
the recording secretary. All of my testimony did appear in the full record.
The full testimony of
everyone who took the stand at this Administrative Hearing was sent to Judge
Bohanon. He then went through all of this material. On December 5, 1977, he
rendered his final decision in the case of Rutherford vs. United States of
America, Joseph A. Califano, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare;
Donald Kennedy, Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration et al. For
those of you who have access to law libraries this will be found in THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA, No. CIV-75-0218-B.
Parts of Judge Bohanon's
decision are as follows:
The action of the
Commissioner of Food and Drugs dated July 29, 1977, is declared unlawful and
such action, findings and conclusions are hereby vacated, set aside and held
The Secretary of
Health, Education and Welfare and his subordinates in the Food and Drug
Administration are hereby permanently enjoined and restrained from
interfering, directly or indirectly, or acting in concert with United States
Customs Service or others, with the importation, introduction, or delivery
for introduction into interstate commerce by any person of Laetrile (Amygdalin)
The Secretary of
Health, Education and Welfare and his subordinates in the Food and Drug
Administration are hereby permanently enjoined and restrained from
interfering with the use of Laetrile (Amygdalin) for the care or treatment
of cancer by a person who is, or believes he is, suffering from the disease;
The Secretary of
Health, Education and Welfare and his subordinates in the Food and Drug
Administration are hereby enjoined and restrained from interfering with any
licensed medical practitioner in administering Laetrile (Amygdalin) in the
care or treatment of his cancer patients.
In giving the reasons
for reaching his decision, Judge Bohanon cited the testimony of many of us at
the Administrative Hearing. I am proud to say that he cited my testimony on
The result of this
decision is what became known as "the affidavit system." The way
this system worked was-if a patient wanted Laetrile, he would have to sign an
affidavit, with five copies, stating that he wanted it. He would have to give
his name, address and telephone number. The doctor had to sign the same
affidavit (all five copies) stating that he would administer the Laetrile.
Both the patient's and the doctor's portions of the affidavit had to be
notarized. This was then sent to a pharmacist who kept one copy and sent the
rest to the FDA. The FDA would send the purchase order to Mexico, where the
Laetrile was manufactured. The order would be filled, packaged, addressed to
the patient and sent from Mexico to an FDA office in California. There it
would be checked with the proper affidavit and sent to the patient. It was not
at all unusual for the FDA to call the patient to make sure that he had
ordered that amount of Laetrile. To some patients this was merely annoying. To
many others it was very upsetting because they were made to feel that they had
done something illegal.
This is where we ran
into an early problem. The FDA did not want to comply with Judge Bohanon's
court order. When the packaged, addressed orders were sent to California, the
FDA would allow the packages to sit for many days in their office before
forwarding them to the patients. A pharmacist in Baltimore, Maryland found an
answer to this. His customers were complaining that they were not getting
their Laetrile orders. He gave them the telephone number of Judge Bohanon's
office. The customers began bombarding the Judge's office with complaints. The
Judge would call the FDA, and for awhile things would run smoothly. Within a
few weeks, however, the problem would again occur. The result was more phone
calls to the Judge's office. The pharmacist here in Ohio, who was handling my
patients, was not involved in the phone call procedure to Judge Bohanon. He
did, however, receive a call from the Judge's office asking him to "call
off the dogs" because the Judge would take care of the matter. Exactly
what the Judge told the Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration,
Donald Kennedy, I do not know. I do know that this hold-up never happened
again with any of my patients.
decision and the affidavit system went from court to court. Many courts upheld
his decision. Some courts did not. His decision and his affidavit system were
finally overturned in February, 1989.
I am not sure what
the status of Laetrile is in most states, but I do know what it is in the
state of Ohio now. No doctor in this state may write a prescription for
Laetrile, but anyone in this state who wishes to have Laetrile may obtain it
without prescription. If the patient buys the Laetrile and takes it to his
doctor, his doctor may then give the Laetrile to the patient. This is, of
course, bureaucracy at its worst. I can buy penicillin and I can give it to a
patient. But, I cannot buy Laetrile and give it to a patient. The patient can
buy the Laetrile and bring it to me, and then I can give it to him.
Anyway, in the state
of Ohio, the patient can get Laetrile and the doctor can give it to him in the
proper manner and the proper dosage. I thank God for small favors!
In Chapter Five I mentioned the testimony of a doctor from the FDA who said
that Laetrile contains "free" hydrogen cyanide and, thus, is toxic.
Somewhere in this book I wanted to correct that misconception. Perhaps this is
the best time to do so.
There is no
"free" hydrogen cyanide in Laetrile. As pointed out in Chapter Two,
when Laetrile comes in contact with the enzyme beta-glucosidase, the Laetrile
is broken down to form two molecules of glucose, one molecule of benzaldehyde
and one molecule of hydrogen cyanide (HCN). Within the body, the cancer cell
— and only the cancer ceil — contains that enzyme. The key word here is
that the HCN must be FORMED. It is not floating around freely in the Laetrile
and then released. It must be manufactured. The enzyme beta-glucosidase, and
only that enzyme, is capable of manufacturing the HCN from Laetrile. If there
are no cancer cells in the body, there is no beta-glucosidase. If there is no
beta-glucosidase, no HCN will be formed from the Laetrile.
It is worthwhile
repeating something I said in Chapter Two: In 1977 it was thought that the
hydrogen cyanide formed in the above-mentioned chemical reaction exerted the
toxic effect against the cancer cell. In the past several years there has been
much evidence to show that this chemical reaction produces only a minute
amount of hydrogen cyanide, that the hydrogen cyanide is quickly converted to
thiocyanate and probably has little, if any, toxic effect on the cancer cell.
It is the benzaldehyde formed in this chemical reaction that is extremely
toxic to the cancer cell.1
Laetrile does contain
the cyanide radical (CN–). This same cyanide radical is contained
in Vitamin B12, and in berries such as blackberries, blueberries
and strawberries. You never hear of anyone getting cyanide poisoning from B12 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 (NaC1), which is
table salt, are two completely different compounds.
If the above is true,
how did the story ever get started that Laetrile contains "free"
hydrogen cyanide? Guess! No, it was not G. Edward Griffin. It was the Food and
I remember reading in
some newspaper back in the late 1960's or early 1970's a news release from the
FDA. This release stated that there were some proponents of a substance known
as "Laetrile" (I'd never heard of it before) who were saying that
this substance was capable of forming hydrogen cyanide in the presence of the
cancer cell. The release continued by saying that, if this were actually true,
we had, indeed, found a substance which was target-specific, and would be of
great value to the cancer patient. But, the news release went on to say, the
FDA had done extensive testing of this substance, "Laetrile," and
found no evidence that it contained hydrogen cyanide or that any hydrogen
cyanide was released in the presence of the cancer cell. Thus, they said,
Laetrile was of no value.
When it was clearly
established some time later that Laetrile did, indeed, release hydrogen
cyanide in the presence of the cancer cell, how do you suppose the FDA
reacted.? Did they admit that they were wrong.? Did they admit that they had
done a very inadequate job in running their tests? No! They now proclaimed
that Laetrile contained hydrogen cyanide and thus was toxic!
So, here is a bureau
of the Federal Government which, a short time before, had said that the reason
Laetrile did not work was because it did not release hydrogen cyanide in the
presence of cancer cells. Now, when they find that it does, they say that it
is toxic. When offered an opportunity to present evidence of Laetrile's
toxicity in Federal Court, they admitted that they had none. (See Chapter One)
When anyone tells you
that Laetrile contains "free" hydrogen cyanide, that individual is
either mis-informed or wants to mis-inform you.
1For a more detailed analysis
of the theoretical action of Laetrile against cancer cells, see G. Edward
Griffin, World Without Cancer (Thousand Oaks, CA: American Media,
Between the years 1975 and 1980 there were so many things happening that I am
sure I do not remember all of them. Some of them were going on at the same
time. These stories need to be told. While the exact chronological order of
these stories may be incorrect, the stories are true.
Certainly one story that needs
to be told is that of Dr. Kanematsu Sugiura. In 1975, Dr. Sugiura was, and had
been for some years, one of the most respected cancer research scientists at
Sloan-Kettering. In working with cancerous mice, Dr. Sugiura found that, when
he used Laetrile on these mice, seventy-seven per cent of them did not develop
a spread of their disease (metastatic carcinoma). He repeated this study over
and over for two years. The results were always the same. Dr. Sugiura took his
findings to his superiors at Sloan-Kettering, but his study was never
published. Instead, Sloan-Kettering published the results of someone else who
claimed that he had used Dr. Sugiura's protocol. This "someone
else's" study showed that there were no beneficial effects from the use
of Laetrile. Dr. Sugiura complained. He was fired. A book was written about
all of this entitled The Anatomy of A Cover-up. This book has all the
actual results of Dr. Sugiura's work. These results do, indeed, show the
benefit of Laetrile. Dr. Sugiura stated in this book, "It is still my
belief that Amygdalin cures metastases." Amygdalin is, of course, the
scientific name for Laetrile.
A few months later, a cancer
researcher at Mayo Clinic, in a private, informal conversation with a friend
of mine, stated that it was very unlikely that any positive effects from the
use of Laetrile would ever be published because "the powers above us want
it that way."
During this period of time,
the National Cancer Institute (NCI) stated that it wanted to run a study to
show the difference between patients treated with orthodox therapy (surgery,
radiation, chemotherapy) and those treated with nutritional therapy. I was
asked to participate in this study. I went to New York to meet with one of the
doctors who was conducting the study. I will call him Dr. Enseeye (not his
real name, of course). There was a group of perhaps six or seven of us who had
dinner that night with Dr. Enseeye. Betty and I were seated next to him.
Dr. Enseeye explained the
study to me. The NCI would take a group of cancer patients and treat them in
the orthodox method. Those of us who were using nutritional therapy would take
a similar group of patients and treat them by our method. The NCI would then
compare the results. This is the conversation that followed:
"What will the NCI use as a
criteria for success or failure in these treatments?" I asked.
"Tumor size," Dr.
I said, "Let me make sure
I understand what you are saying. Suppose you have a patient with a given
tumor. Let's suppose that this patient is treated by one of these two methods.
Let's say that the tumor is greatly reduced in size in the next three months,
but the patient dies. How will the NCI classify that?
"The NCI will classify that
as a success"
"Why?" I asked.
"Because the tumor got
smaller," he replied.
I then asked, "Suppose
you have a similar patient with a similar tumor who was treated with a
different method. Suppose that after two years this patient is alive and well,
but the tumor is no smaller. How will the NCI classify this?"
"They will classify that as
"Why?" I asked.
"Because the tumor did
not get any smaller," he said. Dr. Enseeye went on to say, "In this
study the NCI will not be interested in whether the patient lives or dies.
They will be interested only in whether the tumor gets bigger or
I chose not to participate
in this study!
During this period, the FDA
was sending speakers throughout the country to talk about the'
"evils" of Laetrile. One such speaker was scheduled to appear on the
campus of Macalester College in St. Paul, Minnesota in the spring of 1978. It
just so happened that my son Rick was a sophomore at Macalester College at
that time. Rick was very knowledgeable on the subject of Laetrile. When he
found out when the talk was to be given, he called his older brother, Bill,
who was a senior at the University of Wisconsin in LaCrosse. Bill was equally
knowledgeable about Laetrile and agreed to come to Macalester for the speech.
Rick had also recruited a friend who was a freshman at his school, Michelle
Kleinrichard, who knew as much about the subject as the two of them.
The three of them went to the
speech, but they did not sit together. Bill sat near the center just beyond
half-way back in the auditorium. Rick sat toward the front on the right.
Michelle sat toward the front on the left.
According to all three of
them, the speaker left much to be desired. It was easy to see he had been
given the speech to read, and that he had only a superficial knowledge of the
subject. At the end of the speech he asked for questions. The first one on his
feet was Bill (in the center). What happened was as follows:
Bill: "You said that you
knew of a patient who had cancer and was treated with Laetrile. You said that
the patient died, and this proved that Laetrile was worthless. Hubert Humphrey
had cancer and was treated with chemotherapy. He died three months ago.
Doesn't that prove that chemotherapy is worthless too? But, that's not my
question. You also said that a little girl in New York took five Laetrile
pills and died from cyanide poisoning. The parents now state that she took
only one Laetrile pill. She was fine for three days. Then the doctors started
treating her for cyanide poisoning. The next day she died. How do you explain
Speaker: "I have no
explanation for this."
Speaker: "No, we'll go to
With this, the speaker turned
to another nice looking young man on his left. This other nice looking young
man was Rick. (I have to say they were "nice looking" because I'm
their father.) Rick pointed out that the speaker had stated that work done by
Dr. Harold Manner, using Laetrile alone, had shown no positive results on
cancerous mice. This, the speaker had said, was considered to be of great
scientific value. Subsequent work done by Dr. Manner using Laetrile in
combination with pancreatic enzymes and Vitamin A had shown excellent results.
Yet, the speaker had indicated that these latter results were of no scientific
value. Rick's question was why were these latter results ignored. The speaker
could not answer that question.
The speaker then turned to his
right. There, standing and smiling at him, was a pretty young lady. The
speaker must have thought, "At last, a friendly face." The young
lady was Michelle. Michelle was a member of the debate team at Macalester. The
speaker was badly out-classed. She hit him with both barrels. She asked for a
full explanation of why, if so many people die from chemotherapy, is
chemotherapy so good? Why, if Laetrile makes people feel better, is Laetrile
so bad? She asked who determined that Dr. Manner's recent results were not
scientific. The poor speaker was in trouble. He hemmed and hawed, but never
answered her questions. Finally, he said, "The question and answer period
is over." He turned and rapidly left the stage. In five minutes Bill,
Rick and Michelle had completely destroyed the credibility of the forty-five
So, you ask, whatever became
of those three free-thinking undergraduates who perpetrated this dastardly
deed on this unsuspecting FDA speaker? (You probably weren't going to ask, but
I'm going to tell you anyway!).
Bill got his law degree from
Capital University in Columbus, Ohio. He worked for Congressman Lawrence P.
McDonald as his legislative director until the KAL Flight 007 incident.
Subsequently, he worked for Congressman A1 McCandliss as his legislative
director. Later, he became the Republican counsel for the House Banking
Committee. He has since gone to work for a private business.
Rick got his Ph.D. in
Astronomy from the University of Texas. He is a professor of astronomy at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Rick was, incidentally, the first
astronomer to view the moon around the planet Pluto.
The International Astronomical
Society has named an asteroid (a small planet), Asteroid 2873 Binzel, in his
honor. In 1982, Rick and Michelle were married.
Michelle, in addition to being
a full-time housewife and a full-time mother of two children, has also managed
to complete her Ph.D. in Business Management. When those two children become
teenagers, Michelle is going to need all of her debating skills. I don't know
anything about business management, but as the father of six children, I sure
do know about debating. I wish I had taken it in college.
The Joey Hofbauer Story
One Tuesday night about eight o'clock, in
late November, 1978, I received a telephone call from Professor Francis
Anderson, a professor at the Albany School of Law in Albany, New York.
Professor Anderson told me that he was representing an eight-year-old boy,
Joey Hofbauer, who had been diagnosed as having Hodgkins Disease (a form of
cancer o｣ the lymph nodes). He told me that the Saratoga County Department of
Social Services was trying to force the parents to allow the use of
chemotherapy in the treatment of his disease. The parents did not want the
child to have chemotherapy because they had already begun to have him treated
with nutritional therapy. Professor Anderson explained that there was to be a
court hearing on the following Thursday. He wanted to know if I would be
willing to come to Albany and testify on the boy's behalf. I told him that I
The Professor then stated that
the family did not have much money and asked me how much I would charge. I
told him that I would charge nothing for coming. Professor Anderson said,
"That's wonderful, because I am not charging them anything for my
services either." I told him that, if they could afford to pay my
expenses, that would be fine, but if they couldn't, I'd pay my own way. He
assured me that paying my expenses would be no problem for them.
I arrived in Albany about
10:30 P.M. on Wednesday. I was met at the airport by Professor Anderson, Mr.
John Hofbauer (Joey's father) and by two brothers, whom I will simply call Bob
and Harold, who were friends of John Hofbauer. They took me to my motel, and
the whole group came up to my room. It was there that I learned what had been
going on. I will tell you the story as it was told to me that night.
Joey Hofbauer had been
diagnosed as having Hodgkins Disease some months earlier. His doctors said
that the only treatment was chemotherapy. His father, John, knew others who
had taken chemotherapy. He did not want this for his son. Instead, he took
Joey to a medical clinic in Jamaica for nutritional therapy.
When Joey's doctors found out
that his father had not only taken him out of the country, but was also not
going to have him treated with chemotherapy, they became irate. They filed a
"child abuse" claim against John.
A few weeks later, when John
returned to Albany with Joey, the powers-that-be were lying in wait. Less than
twenty-four hours after their return, a sheriff and several deputies literally
broke down the front door of the Hofbauer home and kidnapped Joey. They took
him to a hospital where, according to the Saratoga County Department of Social
Services, he would receive chemotherapy whether the parents approved or not.
John Hofbauer called his
family attorney and explained the situation. His attorney told him that he did
not want to become involved in a case of this nature. John then took the
telephone directory and called almost every attorney in Albany. The reply was
always the same.
"While I sympathize with
you, I do not want to become involved."
It was now about eleven
o'clock at night. John had gone through all of the attorneys in Albany. Out of
sheer desperation he called his friends, Bob and Harold, in Boston. Bob
answered the phone. John explained what had happened and about his inability
to find an attorney to represent him. Bob told him that he and Harold would
meet him in Albany the next morning.
Bob and Harold drove all night
and arrived at the Hofbauer home about 6:00 A.M. The battle plan was drawn. At
7:00 A.M. Bob left. He spent the entire day visiting every radio and
television station in the city. He told each and every one of those stations
the story of Joey Hofbauer, and that Joey's father had not been able to find
an attorney who was willing to represent him. By mid-afternoon this story was
on every radio station and every television station in Albany.
Watching the six o'clock news
on television was Professor Francis Anderson. He immediately called John
Hofbauer and told him that he would be happy to represent him, and that there
would be no charge for his service. It was two hours later that Professor
Anderson called me. To this day, I do not know how these people got my name.
They never said, and I never thought to ask.
We were by now into the wee
hours of the morning. Professor Anderson asked me if I had ever testified in a
case of this nature. I told him that I had not. He took time to go over the
types of questions he would be asking me on direct examination. This was not a
problem at all. He then went into what I could expect on cross-examination. In
the next hour, I probably learned more about court room procedure than I have
ever learned since. He told me what questions I would be asked and how to
handle those questions. The thing I remember most is that Professor Anderson
told me that the attorneys for the other side would probably start naming a
number of medical books and ask me if I had read them. He told me that if I
had not read them just say, "No." He explained that the court does
not expect that every doctor has read every medical book that has ever been
written. If I had read the book say, "Yes." He told me that if I did
say, "Yes," they would take some quote from that book and ask if I
remembered that quote. If I did not remember that quote, I was to reply,
"No, I do not remember that quote. My statement was that I have read the
book, but I did not memorize it." This lesson, alone, has helped me
through many subsequent court procedures.
When the news began to break
on all of the radio and television stations, rumors began coming out of the
hospital where Joey was confined. These rumors were that hospital was going to
secretly transfer him to another hospital so that his chemotherapy could
begin. Harold took care of that. He marched into the hospital with a cot under
his arm. He went to Joey's bed and put his cot beside it. He then began to
call various friends and neighbors of the Hofbauer's to set up a watch on
Joey. Somebody was to be in that cot next to Joey every minute, twenty-four
hours a day.
When our meeting in my motel
room finally broke up, Bob and Harold told me they would pick me up at 7:00
A.M. I said that would be fine; I would be up and have had breakfast by then.
They informed me I could not do that. They told me threats had been made
against anyone who would testify against the medical establishment. I was told
to remain in my room with the door locked until they, Bob and Harold, called
for me. This seemed to be a little paranoid at the time, but I decided to just
At 7:00 A.M. the phone in my
room rang. It was Bob calling from the lobby of the motel. He told me to look
through the little peep-hole in my door. There, he said, I should see Harold.
If it was not Harold, I was not to open my door but was to immediately call
the motel security. I hung up the phone and looked through the peep-hole in my
door. It was Harold.
The three of us had breakfast
and then went to the hospital where Joey was confined. I was there to examine
Joey. I was taken to the office of the hospital administrator where the
necessary procedures (medical license, personal identification, etc.) were
carried out. I was then turned over to another doctor who was instructed by
the administrator to render me every courtesy.
When Bob, the doctor and I
approached Joey's bed we were immediately challenged by a woman who occupied
the cot next to Joey. Bob assured her that we were "friendly." The
doctor who was assigned to me could not have been nicer. While he never let me
out of his sight, he did promptly, at my request, supply me with a tongue
blade and a stethoscope. I did my examination of Joey.
We went from the hospital to
the court house. On the way, Bob and Harold explained to me that there would
be a number of people from the newspapers and the TV stations in the lobby of
the court house, and that I was not to talk to any of them. We entered the
lobby of the court house. This was my first, and only, experience at seeing TV
camera lights come on and having at least a dozen microphones shoved in my
face at the same time. It was not a pleasant experience. Since that time I
have seen this happen to others on TV at least a thousand times. I don't blame
these people for getting angry at some newspaper and TV
reporters. They deserve it! Somebody yelled at me, "Are you the surprise
witness?" My reply was, "I don' t know ?
When we got into the court
room, the hearing had not begun. The Judge was there and said that any of us
who were to testify could not make any statements to the media until we had
completed our testimony and had been released by the Court. Bob, Harold and I
spent the rest of the morning listening to the prosecution present its case.
It wasn't very good. While they had a number of oncologists and pediatric
specialists testify, Professor Anderson was always successful, on cross
examination, in getting them to admit that they had very little success with
their form of treatment. When the prosecution finished its testimony, the
Judge called a lunch recess.
It was at lunch that I found
out who the "surprise witness" was. It was Dr. Michael Schachter,
from Nyack, New York. It is my impression that Dr. Schachter had heard about
the case and had volunteered to testify on Joey's behalf. The prosecution knew
I was going to testify, since they had made arrangements for me to examine
Joey that morning, but apparently they did not know about Dr. Schachter.
Someone must have leaked to the media that there was going to be a
"surprise witness." Dr. Schachter joined us for lunch. Professor
Anderson covered the same ground with him that he had covered with me the
The defense began its
testimony after lunch. I was the first witness. Under Professor Anderson's
guidance, I gave my testimony. It was nothing extraordinary. We went through
the facts that cancer was the result of a nutritional deficiency which
prevented the body's immunological defense mechanisms from functioning
normally. We covered the aspects of nutritional therapy and its abilities to
help the body restore that normal defense mechanism. Of course, we concluded
that Joey Hofbauer's chances for a better quality and quantity of life were
greater with nutritional therapy than with chemotherapy.
The cross-examination was just
about what Professor Anderson had said it would be. The attorneys for the
County Department of Social Services used the usual attack by calling me a
quack and a charlatan. This was nothing new for me. In my many debates with
oncologists on TV, I had been called much worse than that. As I had learned
before, and as Professor Anderson had cautioned me, "Don't let them make
you angry." I just smiled. They then went into the book routine — had I
read this or that book. I had read some of them. When I told them that I had
read a particular book, they read some quote from the book and asked if I
remembered that quote. My reply was just as Professor Anderson had coached me
— "No, I don't remember that quote, but my statement was that I had
read the book. I did not say that I had memorized it." This, as I best
recall, concluded my testimony.
Dr. Michael Schachter followed
me on the witness stand. It was the cross-examination of Dr. Schachter that I
found most fascinating. Perhaps because he was a licensed physician in the
state of New York, the opposing attorneys really went after him. I had never
before, and have never since, seen anyone handle himself on a witness stand as
well as Dr. Schachter did. I am sorry that I cannot remember the exact details
of the questions asked and the answers he gave. What I do remember is that Dr.
Schachter would, time after time, lead the opposing attorneys on, set a trap
for them, and then at the opportune time, spring that trap. Each time he did,
he would finish with a wide grin. He exhibited both his knowledge about the
side effects of chemotherapy and his knowledge of nutrition. I had to leave
before he was finished, but when I left, Dr. Schachter was grinning and the
opposing attorneys were groaning.
I had to leave because either
Bob or Harold told that it was four o'clock and that we had to catch a six
o'clock flight out of here. With all the traffic, it would take at least an
hour to get to the airport. Besides, we had to meet with the media outside.
I did meet with the media in
the lobby of the court house. With lights glaring, I did a fifteen or twenty
minute interview with the TV people. Finally, Bob and Harold said that we had
to go or we'd never make it to the airport in time.
They were certainly right
about the traffic. I don't remember which of the brothers was driving, but he
drove like someone from Boston. I sat there most of the time with my hands
over my eyes saying Hail Mary's. All I could hear was the honking of horns and
the squealing of brakes from the cars beside us and behind us. Anyway, we did
make it to the airport about a half-hour before the flight. As I walked
through the terminal toward my gate, I passed one of those bars with a TV. I
glanced at the TV and saw a familiar face. It was mine. I was on the
five-thirty news. It was much too noisy to hear what I was saying, and I was
in too much of a hurry to get to my gate to stop and listen. It's a weird
feeling, though, to suddenly look up and see yourself on television.
It would be nice to say that
my flight home was uneventful. This was not the case. My flight from Albany
was to go to Buffalo. After a short lay-over I was to fly to Columbus. We flew
into Buffalo in one of the worst snow storms I have ever seen. How that pilot
was able to put that plane down on the runway, I'll never know. When I went to
the desk to ask about my flight to Columbus, the clerk just laughed. He told
us that was the last flight in here tonight, and there would be nothing
leaving until in the morning.
The clerk made reservations
for me for the 8:00 A.M. flight to Columbus and told me that the airlines
would put me up in a motel for the night. When I told him my wife was waiting
for me in Columbus, he assured me that we would be able to contact her. He
called the airline desk in Columbus. Betty was at the desk. I explained the
problem to her. She had just driven through a terrible ice storm to get to
Columbus and had no desire to drive fifty miles back home again. We agreed
that she should find a near-by motel, spend the night and meet my flight in
The next morning I took the
motel shuttle to the airport. It was still snowing. When we got to the airport
about 7:30 A.M., there was only one clerk on duty and about fifty people in
line. At about 7:55 A.M. he announced that the flight to Columbus was closed
and was leaving. A howl went up from the twenty-or-more of us still in line
waiting to get on that flight. Bless his heart, he called back to the plane
immediately and told them to hold until he could get all of the people there
It was now snowing harder than
it was when I had come to the airport. The plane taxied out to the runway,
gunned its engines and started its takeoff. It had trouble getting traction,
sliding back and forth across the runway before finally taking off. There was
a little five or six foot wooden barrier at the end of the runway. We were so
low that, if I could have opened my window, I could have easily picked up that
barrier. We got to Columbus without any further problems. My wife was there to
meet me. Our fifty mile trip home was no joy either. We slipped and slid all
of the way, but were able to stay out of most of the ditches. When I went into
my office at two o'clock that afternoon, my office girl (Ruthie) asked,
"How was your trip?" I thought at the time it was like someone
asking Custer, when he reached the Pearly Gates, "Other than that,
General, how was your day?"
At seven o'clock that night I
got a phone call from Professor Anderson. The Judge had handed down his
decision late that afternoon. He ruled that Joey should be returned to his
parents and that he could continue to receive nutritional treatment. The Judge
stated that nutritional therapy "has a place in our society" and
that the parents of Joey Hofbauer were not guilty of child neglect in choosing
that treatment for their son. The attorney for the State Health Department
said that he was "very disappointed" with the decision.
I wish I could say that Joey
Hofbauer lived happily ever after. Such is not the case. I never saw Joey
again after that day, and I don't really know what happened. I do know that he
was under Dr. Schachter's care for a while, and I do know that he died about
two years later somewhere out of this country. Chemotherapy, I am sure, would
not have prolonged his life. Hopefully, whatever was done added to the quality
of his life.
At the beginning of Chapter Seven, I stated that there were many things going
on in the years between 1975 and 1980. Let me, at this point, try to give you
some idea of what I meant.
I was in private practice as a
family physician. Although my primary obligation was to my family practice
patients, I tried to take one hour in the morning and two hours in the
afternoon three days a week to work with cancer patients. My waiting time for
starting new cancer patients on the nutritional program was three months. This
was terrible, but there were very few doctors doing nutritional therapy at
that time. I was not in the office on Thursday, Saturday or Sunday. Almost all
of my Thursdays were filled giving interviews, going somewhere to give a talk
or to be on a television program. There were trips to Columbus, Ohio to
testify before the Ohio State legislature and trips to Jackson, Michigan to
testify before the Michigan State legislature. Many of my weekends were spent
attending or speaking at seminars on nutrition.
Betty and our six children
also needed some of my time. We had children graduating from high school,
entering college and graduating from college every year during this period.
The beginning and ending of the college year and college vacation time is
still pretty much of a blur to Betty and me. None of our children went to the
same college. Much of the time Betty would take off in one direction, and I
would take off in the other to pick up, or deliver, whoever was in that
direction. During this time, we also had the weddings of our oldest son and
our oldest daughter.
For these reasons, I don't
remember every newspaper or TV interview or even every television appearance.
I would, however, like to tell you about a few which stand out in my memory.
There are some very
intelligent newspaper and TV people out there. There are people like Alice
Hornbaker from the Cincinnati Enquirer. There are people like the woman
from the Akron-Canton area of Ohio, whose name I cannot remember. She had
multiple sclerosis some years before and had managed, through good nutrition,
to control her disease. In our interviews, both of these women understood what
I meant by good nutrition and wrote excellent newspaper articles about how
nutrition could help the cancer patient. There was a woman from one of the
Dayton, Ohio television stations that had obviously done her homework on
nutrition. My TV interview with her was delightful.
Then, there are the others. My
first experience with "the other kind" was with a television station
in Columbus, Ohio. This would have been in the Spring of 1977. The station had
called and we had set an exact date and time for their interview. I had picked
1:00 P.M. because my office hours began at 2:00, and I figured that one hour
would be sufficient time for the interview. The TV crew arrived thirty minutes
late. On camera, I explained to the interviewer that Laetrile was not a
miracle drug or a cancer vitamin or a cancer cure, but was just a small part
of a total nutritional program. I explained that, while I could put into the
body the nutritional ingredients that the body needed in order to allow its
defense mechanisms to function, I had no way of knowing how efficiently that
patient's body would use those nutritional ingredients. Thus, I said, I could
not guarantee any patient anything. My only guarantee to the patient, I told
her, was that I would do everything I could to get that patient into as good a
nutritional shape as I possibly could in order to allow that patient's defense
mechanisms to function as well as they possibly could.
By now, patients with 2:00
P.M. appointments were beginning to come into the office. Since we were doing
the interview in my waiting room, I insisted that we move the interview to the
sidewalk in front of my office. This was done. In watching the patients come
into my office, the lady interviewer got the brilliant idea that the crew
should film the patients in the treatment rooms while I was giving them their
Laetrile injections. My reply was, "These are sick people. This is not a
circus." This made her very unhappy, and she immediately concluded the
Betty was there while all of
this was going on. When we saw how the interview was presented on the 11:00
P.M. news that night, we were both flabbergasted. The lady interviewer did
most of the talking. Nothing concerning the nutritional aspect of all
of this, which I had so carefully gone through, was shown or even mentioned.
This lady (and, perhaps, I use the term loosely) ended by saying, in a
voice-over, that Dr. Binzel guaranteed that he could cure any patient with
Very early the next morning I
was on the phone to the station manager. When I was finally able to get
through to him, his tone was, to say the least, haughty. He just didn't have
time to see me. When I suggested that it would probably take less time to see
me than it would be to see my attorney, he agreed to give me an appointment.
This appointment was for two o'clock that afternoon.
When Betty and I arrived for
the appointment, he could not have been nicer. It seems that people from the
Ohio State Medical Board had been there that morning. They watched the tape of
the interview. The truth was in the tape. He was kind enough to show us the
entire tape. At the end, he said that he just did not know how this woman had
been able to make such a statement. He apologized for what she had done. I
accepted his apology but told him that I might, because of what his station
had done, be in trouble with the State Medical Board. He assured me that, if
this were the case, his station would be more than happy to pay for any legal
expenses that I might incur and to compensate me for any inconvenience. I
never heard from the Ohio State Medical Board about this TV interview.
Perhaps the weirdest of my
experiences with the media happened with a young female reporter from a
Dayton, Ohio newspaper. (I'm not trying to pick on you girls. It just happened
that way.) She called and made an appointment for late one Friday afternoon in
the summer of 1977. I spent about two hours with her explaining nutrition and
how nutrition was important in the body's defense mechanisms. I discussed
Laetrile and its role in good nutrition. There was nothing unusual about the
entire interview. What was unusual was the article that appeared on the front
page of that Dayton newspaper on Saturday morning. There was absolutely no
similarity between the article and the interview of the previous day. The
article quoted me as saying that Laetrile was a miracle drug and would cure
anyone's cancer. How was I so sure that there was no similarity? Because I had
long been in the habit of making a tape recording of all interviews.
Early Monday morning I called
my long-time friend and family attorney, John Bath, and explained the
situation to him. John recommended that I first call the editor of the paper
and demand a retraction. He said, "If that doesn't work, and if your tape
is what you say it is, you and I may end up owning that newspaper."
I called the editor and stated
my objections. He assured me that the article was probably quite correct. I
then informed him about the tape recording and my conversation with my
attorney. The editor promised to call me back. He did so within an hour. He
told me what had happened.
The young lady who had done
the interview had a date for a beach party that night. She wrote and submitted
her article before she came to see me. She went from my office to her party
without changing anything in her original article. The editor told me that
there would be a retraction on the front page of Tuesday's paper. He was true
to his word. Not only was there a full retraction, but the whole story was
told. The article ended by saying that the young lady was no longer employed
by the paper. John and I never got our opportunity to own a newspaper.
In 1991, a friend of mine was
able to get in touch with the editor of a Columbus, Ohio newspaper. He told
the editor that there was a story about the treatment of cancer that, perhaps,
the paper should look into. The editor did send a young female reporter to my
office. I spent several hours with her explaining why I was using nutritional
therapy and telling her about the results that I had obtained. I told her that
I would make all of the necessary legal arrangements which would permit
someone from the paper to go through all of my patient files and verify the
statistics. What I wanted was a series of articles explaining nutritional
therapy and showing the results that could be obtained by its use. I told her
it was not necessary that my name ever appear in the articles. What I wanted
was to get this information to the public.
The young lady understood
exactly what I wanted to do. However, she said her paper was an
"establishment" newspaper, and it would rarely print anything with
an opposing view. What I wanted to do, she explained, would be an attack on
the medical establishment. She didn't think her editor would allow that. She
promised she would talk with her editor about it and would contact me again
only if he said, "Yes." (Don't call me. I'll call you.) She never
My last contact with the TV
media was in July, 1993. A TV station from Columbus called and wanted to set
up an interview. We set up a date and time. The interview was to be done in my
home. When the crew arrived, the interviewer wanted to start filming
immediately. I refused. I told her that we would not start filming until I
said so. I spent the next forty-five minutes explaining what nutritional
therapy was and why I was using it. I went through the whole routine of
Laetrile, pointing out that, while it was an important part of nutritional
therapy, it was only a small part of the total program.
She said, "Now can we
film?" I told her that we would not film until we had gone through the
questions that she was going to ask. She told me that she did not have any
prepared questions and would just ask questions off the top of her head. She
As soon as the camera began to
roll, she turned to a page in her note book which was filled with prepared
questions. Her first question was, "I assume from what you have said that
you are the conduit for the transportation of Laetrile through the state of
Ohio?" In my previous forty-five minute discussion with this woman, I had
already told her that I had nothing to do with the buying, selling or
distribution of Laetrile.
Her next question was,
"How much do you charge for your services.?" I told her that, in all
of the years that I had seen cancer surgeons, oncologists and radiologists on
TV, I had never heard anyone ask them what they charged for their services. I
went on to explain that I discuss my charges only with the patient, not with
There were several more
questions about Laetrile, and then she said, "We want to take pictures of
your patient files." I told her that this would be illegal, and that I
would not even consider it. She said that unless she could see those files,
she would not be convinced that any such files existed. I replied, "I
couldn't care less whether you're convinced. You are not going to see my
files." After she had left, I thought my reply should have been,
"Well, I don't think you're wearing any underwear, and I won't be
convinced unless you show me." I'm so glad I didn't think of that until
after she was gone!
That night on the TV news,
less than a minute or a minute and a half was given to this interview. She did
most of the talking. Nothing was said about nutrition. Her final comment was,
"Dr. Binzel says that he has had good results with his treatment, but he
has no proof." I understand why so many people distrust the media.
State Medical Board
After my 1976 confrontation with the Ohio State Medical Board, I heard nothing
from them until September, 1978. I then received the following letter:
Dear Dr. Binzel:
We understand that
you may be treating a patient with Laetrile who has Hodgkins Disease.
Further, we understand that the patient has been diagnosed as being at least
50 to 60 per cent curable with current accepted treatment.
As you know, the
use of Laetrile has been extremely controversial and has been under review
by the Courts. We would appreciate your comments with respect to this
William J. Lee
My reply to this was as
Dear Mr. Lee:
In response to your
letter of September 27th, it would be necessary to know the name of the
patient to whom you refer before I can comment on the treatment that is
I am quite aware
that Laetrile has been reviewed by the courts. I am also aware that the
legal status of Laetrile is covered by Federal Court Order #CIV-75-0218-B,
April 8, 1977, of Federal Judge Bohanon of Oklahoma City.
Philip E. Binzel, M.D.
Federal Court Order
#CIV-75-0218-B was the legal name of the Federal Court Order by Judge Bohanon
which set up the affidavit system described in Chapter Five. Again, what this
said was that any patient who wanted Laetrile could have it, and any doctor
who chose to give it could do so, if the patient would sign an
affidavit stating that he wanted it and the doctor would sign the same
affidavit stating that he would give it. This Federal Court Order went on to
say that any attempt by the FDA to prevent any patient from obtaining
Laetrile, or any attempt by any State Medical Board to prevent any doctor from
using Laetrile, would be considered contempt of court.
As seen in my letter,
I did not outline these facts to the Medical Board. My thought was, "I'll
give them the legal number and let them look it up for themselves."
Would you believe
that I never received a reply to my letter?
It wasn't until
January 30, 1990, that my next conflict with the Ohio State Medical Board
began. On that date, in the middle of my office hours, a man walked into my
office, handed Ruthie his card and demanded she let him see me now. On
his card it stated that this man was an Enforcement Officer of the Ohio State
Medical Board. From my previous experience with these people, I had him cool
his heels until I got a break in my schedule. The "Enforcer," as he
shall henceforth be referred to, told me that he had been sent to my office by
the State Medical Board to immediately pick up a list of all of the patients
that I had treated with Laetrile in the past five years. I told him that it
was illegal for me to give anyone the name, address, telephone number or any
information whatsoever about any patient without that patient's written
consent. I explained that I would have to go through my records and contact
each patient individually. This, I said, would take a considerable period of
time. He left saying that he would be back in a few weeks.
conversation with the Enforcer, he volunteered the information that this
investigation was probably started by a complaint from the Food and Drug
Administration. He then added, "The Medical Board certainly wants to stay
out of any trouble with the FDA." After thinking about this statement for
a while, I began to realize how strange this whole thing was. After all, since
1977 all of the patients for whom I had prescribed Laetrile had gotten their
Laetrile through the affidavit system. This meant that the FDA already had the
names, addresses and telephone numbers of all such patients for the past five
years. If it was the State Medical Board that wanted this information, it
could easily be obtained from the FDA. The thought then dawned on me that it
was possible that this investigation had nothing to do with names and
addresses, but was merely for the purpose of harassment. Nothing that
transpired afterwards caused me to change my mind.
That night I called
my son Bill, the attorney. I told him what had happened. He said that, while
he had worked only in Washington D.C. since passing the Ohio Bar exam, he
still had all of his Ohio law books and would research this for me.
Within a few days I
received a letter from Bill. In this letter, he quoted the exact sections of
Ohio law dealing with this subject. The law said that any doctor who gave any
information about any patient to anyone without that patient's written consent
would have his license revoked. It went on to say that any third party who
attempted to obtain such information was also in violation of the law.
Bill advised me that,
since this was a verbal request and not a written request, I would be in
violation of the law if I complied. Furthermore, he said, the law requires
that the patient make an "informed consent." In order for the
patient to do this, there were certain things the patient had to know, such
1. The specific nature
and purpose of the inquiry.
2. Who originated the inquiry?
3. What will be done with the information provided?
4. Will I be contacted? If so, in what manner?
5. What specific information do you want from me?
6. Am I under any obligation to respond to the request?
7. Will this information be made public or used in such a way that it may be
subject to becoming public?
Bill put all of this
and a lot of other legal language in a letter he composed for me to send to
the Medical Board. All I had to do was copy that letter, fill in the proper
names and dates and send it to the President of the Medical Board. This I did.
No reply to that letter was ever received.
About one month later
the "Enforcer" was back. He used the usual routine — no
appointment, came in the middle of my office hours, stated that he was from
the State Medical Board and wanted to be seen now! Again, I had him
wait awhile. He told me he was here to pick up the list of the patient's names
and addresses that he had requested the time before. The dialogue that ensued
was something like this:
Me: I don't have a
list. I never got a reply to my letter.
Enforcer: What letter?
Me: The letter I sent
to the President of the Medical Board.
Enforcer: I don't
know anything about any letter, but they never tell me anything anyway.
I showed him a copy
of my letter and then asked him if he realized that, because there was nothing
in writing, what he was doing was illegal. This puzzled him, so I read him the
section of Ohio law which said that a third party requesting such information
was in violation of the law. He said, "Gosh, I didn't know that! What are
they trying to do to me up there?" He left with a very concerned look on
On March 29, 1990, I
received a subpoena from the Ohio State Medical Board requiring that by April
19, 1990, I provide for them the names, addresses and telephone numbers of all
the patients that I had treated with Laetrile in the past five years. It was
obvious that I needed a local attorney. My family attorney, John Bath, had
retired, so I called Judge Evelyn Coffman. Evelyn and I had been friends for
many years. She had served on the bench as Judge of the Court of Common Pleas
for twenty-four years. When she left the bench, she went into the private
practice of law. Bill knew her quite well and said that he would be happy to
work with her in any way she wanted. I could not have made a better choice.
When Evelyn read the
subpoena, she recognized immediately that it was deficient. The subpoena
stated that it was issued "because of the following charges." But,
there were no charges listed. Evelyn called the State Medical Board, which
said it did not know what the charges were because they had been issued by the
Attorney General's office. She called the Attorney General's office, and what
she got mostly was the run-around — "So-and-so is handling that, and
he's not here. He'll call you back." Of course, he never did. Evelyn,
because of her years on the bench, had some good connections in the Attorney
General's office. It didn't take her long to cut through all of this red tape.
She soon got to the individual who was handling this case. She told him that
the charges against her client were not listed on the subpoena and that she
wanted to know what they were. He said, "They are secret." She
explained that as my attorney, she had the right to know what I had been
charged with. His reply was that he had orders not to tell anyone.
A few days later
Evelyn was able to get in touch with someone else in the Attorney General's
office. She explained to this individual that it would be impossible for me to
go through all of my records and get the information they wanted by April 19.
She also stated that she had serious doubts about the legality of what the
Medical Board was doing and needed time to research the law. She then informed
him that, if the Attorney General's office insisted on the April 19th date,
her client was quite willing to take the matter to court. Judge Coffman had
spoken the magic word.
I had told Evelyn
during our very first conference that I was not going to give in on this
unless we took it to court and lost. I really wanted to take it to court
immediately, but her cooler head prevailed. As soon as she said
"court" to this individual, he backed off. He agreed to give us as
much time as we needed and sent her a letter to that effect.
We had won Round One!
When I first consulted Evelyn, she told me that from here on I was not to see,
talk with or have any contact with any Enforcer from the State Medical Board.
Should one appear at my office for any reason, he was to be sent to her
office. As expected, one such Enforcer did appear in my office on April 19th,
the date stated on the subpoena. He used the same unannounced, belligerent,
approach as those who preceded him. I went out to the waiting room to see him.
Our conversation went like this:
Enforcer: I'm here to
get the list of patients.
Me: I have been
advised by my attorney that, whatever you want, you are to see her.
Enforcer: I want the
list. Does she have it?
Me: I have been
advised by my attorney that, whatever you want, you are to see her. Her name
is Judge Evelyn Coffman and this is her address. Now, let me give you some
friendly advice. Don't go busting into her office like you have done here.
She was a Common Pleas judge for more than twenty years, and she's mean. If
you go busting into her office, she'll probably have you thrown in jail.
An hour later I got a
call from Evelyn. She said, "What did you say to that fellow who was in
your office?" I told her. She said, "Well, I wondered. He didn't
come to my office, but he called me. I could tell by his voice that he was
scared to death." He had not been informed about the time extension.
We had won Round Two!
The battle then shifted. The next thing I heard was that, because I had not
complied with the April 19th deadline, I must now bring the entire medical
records (not just the names and addresses) of all of these patients to the
Ohio State Medical Board offices in Columbus. They said that they would, as
time allowed, make copies of these records and send the copies to me. You can
imagine my response to this! Evelyn called them and explained that:
1. Because of the
sheer weight of these records, it would be physically impossible for me to
bring them to Columbus.
2. Because I was
either actively seeing most of these patients, or advising them by phone or
letter, not to have the patient's medical record available could endanger
the health or the life of that patient.
3. If the State
Medical Board insisted on this, we would take it to court.
Evelyn had, again,
hit upon the magic word. They immediately backed down. After numerous
conversations back and forth, it was agreed that the State Medical Board would
send an investigator to my office and make copies of all of my Laetrile files.
There were, however, some strings attached to this. Since I did not have a
copying machine in my office, the Medical Board would have to bring its own.
The Medical Board would have to pay for the space they were using in my
office. The Medical Board would have to pay the expense of the office girl who
was bringing them the files. The Medical Board would have to pay for the
utilities used in this process. These payments were to be made in advance on
each day that their investigator was here. If not, we would take the matter to
court. Again, the magic word; and again, they backed down.
By October, 1990, the
battle had shifted again. Having dropped the idea of copying my records, the
Medical Board went back to trying to getting a list of the names and
addresses. Because of a recent Ohio Supreme Court decision, it was Evelyn's
legal opinion, with which Bill concurred, that I would probably have to supply
them with the information they wanted. On October 15, Evelyn received a letter
from the State Medical Board stating that an investigator from the Board would
be in her office "at 10:00 A.M., on Friday, October 26, 1990, to review
the list of names in compliance with the subpoena of March 29, 1990."
Evelyn's reply, dated October 18, 1990, was as follows:
Dear Mr. Boatright,
In reflecting upon
his responsibilities to his patients, Dr. Binzel recognizes also his
responsibility to the Medical Board under the Ohio Revised Code and
determines that he will compile a list of names, addresses and phone numbers
as per the subpoena if the Board would be so kind as to do the following
(and this would save the Board and the investigators's time going through
1. Before the Board
makes a contact with each patient the Board will give Dr. Binzel a ten day
notice so that he might put the patient at ease as to the possibility of an
investigation. This assurance Dr. Binzel would appreciate having in writing.
I'm sure the Board can understand the trauma cancer patients are going
through at best and that they need no further reasons of insecurity.
2. As soon as Dr.
Binzel receives the foregoing documents he will have all names, addresses
and phone numbers in the Board's hands within three weeks.
This letter was
written at my insistence. Why? Because, for most cancer patients, their
disease is very psychologically traumatic and very personal. They don't want
to discuss it with anyone. The last thing they need is to be harassed about
the treatment that they decided was best for them. One elderly woman, who
would have been on my list, was very timid. I knew that if some Enforcer from
the Medical Board confronted her, she would have been scared to death. She
would have been sure that she had committed some horrible crime. She didn't
Also, I had some
patients who had stressed to me that they did not want anyone else to know
that they had cancer. One was a woman with three small children, whose husband
had left her a few months before. This had been very traumatic for the
children. She went on to say that, if the children now found out that she had
cancer, it would be more than they could handle. I could visualize some
blundering Enforcer from the State Medical Board knocking on her door.
Assuming that one of the children answered the door, he would probably say, in
a voice that could be heard for ten miles, "I want to talk to your mother
about her cancer!" This would have been devastating to the patient and to
I had another woman
who worked in a large office. Her immediate superior knew that she had cancer,
but she did not want anyone else in that office to know. Again, I could
visualize some Enforcer from the State Medical Board coming into that office
and saying, in front of a large office staff, "I want to talk to Mrs.
So-and-so about her cancer!"
In good conscience, I
simply could not allow this sort of thing to happen to any of my patients. I
felt that I was morally obligated to protect those patients to the extent that
the law would allow. By setting up the ten-day period, as described in the
letter, I could contact the patient first. I could then explain to my patients
that they were free to give any information to the Medical Board that they
wanted, but that they were not obligated to give any information at all, if
they so wished. This would give patients, such as those described above, an
opportunity to write or call the Board and refuse permission to be contacted
in any manner.
I told Judge Coffman
that this was as far as I would go. I had been pushed to my absolute limits.
If, for whatever reason, the State Medical Board did not agree to her letter, in
writing, that was it! There were to be no more letters and no more phone
calls. We would go to court! Evelyn concurred whole heartily.
While Judge Coffman
was in the process of putting this letter together, I called my State
Representative, Mr. Joe Haines, in Columbus and asked for an appointment to
see him. He told me that he would be in Washington Court House on the next day
on other business and would be happy to come to my house. We set a time. I
called Evelyn. She said that she would be available to come and that she and
Joe Haines were long-time friends.
The next day Betty
and I met with Joe Haines, his wife and Judge Coffman. I briefly went through
my program of nutritional therapy and why I was using it. I then went into my
conflict with the Ohio State Medical Board and why I did not want to give the
names, addresses and phone numbers as demanded by their subpoena. Evelyn
filled Joe Haines in on the legal procedures that had transpired. Joe listened
intently but said very little. He did ask Evelyn some questions about the
legal aspects of this. However, he did not say, one way or the other, whether
he would even look into the matter. The only statement he made was that, in
his opinion, the Medical Board would be making a big mistake by taking this
case to court.
At 10:00 A.M. on the
morning of October 26, 1990, an Enforcer from the Medical Board showed up in
Judge Coffman's office and told her secretary that he was there to pick up the
list of names, addresses, and telephone numbers that had been promised. Evelyn
was out of town. The secretary didn't know what he was talking about. She
called my home and talked with Betty. Betty told her to look in my file and
she would find a letter dated October 18th to the Board. Betty told her that
no reply to that letter had been received. The secretary remembered the
Not having been there
at the time, I can only relate to you the story as told by Judge Coffman's
secretary. She said that she gave the letter to the Enforcer. He read it and
asked if he could use the phone. She said that it was obvious from his
conversation that the party on the other end of the line knew about the
letter. The Enforcer's final comment was, "Why in the hell don't you tell
me about these things before I come all the way down here!" With
this, he slammed down the phone and left.
I have not heard from
the Ohio State Medical Board since that day. I still do not know whether Joe
Haines intervened on my behalf. I did see Joe at a meeting three or four
months later. It was neither the time nor place to discuss this in detail. I
did say to him, "Joe, I have not heard from the Medical Board since I
last saw you." His only reply was, "No, and you're not going
In Chapter Two, I discussed the work done by Drs. Krebs, Burk, Nieper,
Contreras, Navarro and Sakai. Their work showed that there are numerous
nutritional deficiencies which may exist within the cancer patient. The most
important thing they stressed was that, unless you correct all of these
deficiencies, you are not going to help that patient. Thus, they were talking
about a total nutritional program. It is that total nutritional
program which I want to discuss in this chapter.
There is an old saying in the
medical profession which goes something like this: "The doctor who treats
himself has a fool for a doctor and an idiot for a patient." Or, as we
would say in medical school of anyone who did something dumb, "He has
bilateral stupidity with metastases."
I am going to outline, in
generalities, the treatment that I use. For any individual reading this
book who decides to treat himself with what follows, I say,
"Please read the paragraph above again, and again and again!" If you
think it is bad for a doctor to treat himself, how much worse is it for
someone who knows little or nothing about medicine to try to treat himself?
God did not make any two of us exactly alike, thus the exact treatment must be
fitted to the needs of each patient.
The whole objective of this
nutritional program is to do two things:
1. To put into the body the
nutritional ingredients that the body needs in order to allow its
immunological defense mechanisms to function normally, and
2. To take away from the
body those thing that are detrimental to the normal function of its
immunological defense mechanisms.
There are three parts to this
1. Vitamins and enzymes
VITAMINS AND ENZYMES
1. Multiple vitamin — 1 twice
2. Vitamin C 1 gram — 1 twice daily
3. Vitamin E 400 units — 1 twice daily
4. Megazyme Forte (a combination of trypsin, chymotrypsin, bromalin and
zinc) — 2 three times daily
5. Pangamic acid (BI5) 100 mg. — 1 three times daily
6. Pro-A-Mulsion (25,000 I.U. Vitamin A per drop) — 5 drops daily.
Since vitamins are food, they
should be taken with meals or immediately thereafter. It is never a good idea
to take any vitamin on an empty stomach.
In order to supply the
necessary nitrilosides I use Amygdalin (Laetrile). Laetrile is available in
500 mg. tablets and in vials (10cc-3 gms.) for intravenous use. I use both
forms. The dosage that I use is as follows:
The intravenous Laetrile is
given three times weekly for three weeks with at least one day between
injections (Mon., Wed., Fri.). The Laetrile is not diluted and is given by
straight I.V. push over a period of one to two minutes depending on the amount
The dosage for the intravenous
1 st dose 1 vial (10cc-3 gms.)
2nd dose 2 vials (20cc-6 gms.)
3rd dose 2 vials (20cc-6 gms.)
4th through the 9th doses 3 vials (30cc-9 gms.)
Following this first three
weeks of I.V. injections, the patient then has one injection of 1 vial (10cc-3
gms.) once weekly for three months. If the patient notices a considerable
difference in the way he feels when the injections are reduced to once weekly,
the injections are increased to two or three times a week for three weeks. The
dose is then reduced again to once weekly. This is repeated as often as
necessary until the patient notices no difference with the reduced dosage.
The oral Laetrile is given in
a dosage of 1 gram (two 500 rag. tablets) daily on the days on which the
patients do not receive the intravenous Laetrile. I have them take both
tablets at the same time at bedtime on an empty stomach with water. The water
is important because there are some enzymes in the fruits and vegetables and
in their juices which will destroy part of the potency of the Laetrile tablets
while they are in the stomach. Once the stomach has emptied, this is no
It should be noted that I do
not start my patients on their Laetrile, either I.V. or orally, until the
patients have been on their vitamins, enzymes and diet for a period of ten
days to two weeks. I find that the Laetrile seems to have little or no effect
until a sufficient quantity of other vitamins and minerals are in the body.
Zinc, for example, is the transportation mechanism for the Laetrile. In the
absence of sufficient quantities of zinc, the Laetrile does not get into the
tissues. The body will not rebuild any tissue without sufficient quantities of
Vitamin C, etc.
When I start the intravenous
and oral dosages of Laetrile, I also begin to increase the amount of Vitamin
C. I have my patients increase their Vitamin C by one gram every third day
until they reach a level of at least six grams. In some patients I use more. I
find that there are some patients who develop irritation of the stomach or
diarrhea with the larger doses of Vitamin C. I find by increasing this by one
gram every third day that, if these symptoms develop, I can reduce the Vitamin
C to a level that causes no problem. I find that most of my patients tolerate
the higher doses of Vitamin C very well.
On the days that my patients
receive intravenous Laetrile I ask them not to take their Vitamin A. There
have been some studies indicating that Vitamin A may interfere with the body's
ability to metabolize intravenous Laetrile. This has not been fully proved,
but I choose to have my patients not take their Vitamin A drops on the days on
which they receive their intravenous Laetrile. Also, I tell my patients not to
take the Laetrile tablets on the days that they receive their intravenous
Laetrile. They have received intravenously as much Laetrile as the body can
handle for that period of time. There are no ill effects from taking the
tablets on those days, but the effect of the tablets is wasted.
The level of nitrilosides in
the body can be monitored. When the body metabolizes nitrilosides, the
by-product is thiocyanate. Thiocyanate levels in the blood can be measured. I
find, in general, that the patients who do best are those in whom the
thiocyanate level is between 1.2 and 2.5 Mg/DL. This level can be raised or
lowered by increasing or decreasing the dosage of the Laetrile tablets.
I do not want to leave the
impression that Laetrile is the only source of nitrilosides. As stated in
Chapter Two, there are some 1500 foods that contain nitrilosides. These
include apricot kernels, peach kernels, grape seeds, blackberries,
blueberries, strawberries, bean sprouts, lima beans, and macadamia nuts. The
advantage of using Laetrile in the cancer patient is that Laetrile is a
concentrated form of nitrilosides. It can raise the nitriloside level in the
body (and, thus, re-establish the body's second line of defense against
cancer) much more rapidly than can be done by diet alone.
The diet that I use on my
patients can be summarized as follows: "If it is animal or if it comes
from animal, you can not have it. (As one patient said, "If it moves, I
can't eat it.") If it is not animal or does not come from animal, you can
have it, but you can not cook it." I take away from my patients all meat,
all poultry, all fish, all eggs, cheese, cottage cheese and milk.
The reason for such a diet
goes back to Chapter Two. Remember, I said that Dr. Krebs et al. had
found that the cancer cell had a protein lining (or covering), and that if the
body dissolves that protein lining, it would kill the cancer cell. The
dissolving of that protein lining, they said, is done by the enzymes trypsin
and chymotrypsin, which are secreted by the pancreas. It is important to
understand that it takes large quantities of trypsin and chymotrypsin to
digest animal protein. Thus, the cancer patient who is eating animal protein
may be using up all, or almost all, of his trypsin and chymotrypsin for
digestive purposes. This leaves none of these enzymes available to the rest of
The patient would be on this
diet for a minimum of four months. In that period of time, I was attempting to
free the trypsin and the chymotrypsin from being used up for digestive
purposes and to put these enzymes back into the body in order to restore the
body's first line of defense against cancer.
The reason for the fresh
fruits and fresh vegetables is, again, because of enzymes. There are some
enzymes in fresh fruits and vegetables which are tremendously important in
good nutrition. Any temperature over 130 degrees will destroy the enzymes in
the fruits and vegetables. For this reason, the fruits and vegetables may not
be cooked, canned or bottled. Frozen foods from the grocery store are also
prohibited because most of these frozen foods have been processed in some
manner. They have either been blanched, pasteurized or sterilized so that the
enzymes have been destroyed. Those who do their own home freezing are
permitted to do so as long as they do not blanch the foods before they are
This means a diet that is high
in salads. Salad dressings are permitted as long as the salad dressings do not
contain anything which the patient may not have. Salad dressings which contain
egg or sugar are not permitted. I find that many of my patients soon begin to
make their own salad dressings. This is fine as long as they start with a pure
vegetable oil and use no refined sugar. I do not attempt to severely limit the
salt intake of my patients unless they have a medical problem which requires
it. I tell them that salt may be used in moderation, but any salt that is used
should be sea salt. The mineral content of sea salt is far superior to mineral
content of the salt we normally use. Iodized sea salt is fine, if they need
it. I encourage them to use a variety of other herbs and spices in order to
vary the salad dressings so they are not eating the same thing over and over
The patients are not permitted
anything which contains white flour or white sugar. Whole wheat flour can be
used instead of white flour. In the place of sugar they can use either honey
or molasses. Foods containing preservatives are kept to an absolute minimum.
The patients are encouraged to
have as wide a variety of vegetables as possible. I realize that all
vegetables are somewhat similar, but each vegetable, in its own way, supplies
something nutrition-wise that no other vegetable has. My patients are
encouraged to have, within any two-week period of time, at least some of every
vegetable available at that season.
My patients are encouraged to
have as wide a variety of fruits as possible, except for the citrus fruits.
Oranges, lemons, grapefruit and tomatoes (Yes, tomatoes are a citrus fruit.)
are not to be more than ten percent of their fruit intake. Other fruits such
as apples, peaches, and pears contain far more nutrition than do the citrus
fruits. My patients are also told that, except for the citrus fruits, they
should eat the seeds of their fruits. Apple seeds, grape seeds, apricot
kernels, peach kernels, etc. have a high nitriloside content.
With the combined fruits and
vegetables, I like for my patients to have about sixty percent vegetables and
about forty percent fruits. I do not require that they weigh and measure their
fruits and vegetables, but ask only that they keep the vegetable intake a
little higher than the fruit intake.
Protein in the diet is, of
course, very necessary. However, rather than using animal protein, I use
vegetable protein. Vegetable protein requires nothing in the way of the
enzymes trypsin and chymotrypsin for digestion. The things that they use for
their protein content can be cooked. You do not alter or harm a vegetable
protein by cooking it.
The things I recommended for
protein are as follows:
It is important that the
patients read the ingredients on the labels of everything they buy. Everything
labeled "Whole Wheat Bread" is not necessarily whole grain. Many of
these breads contain only a small amount of whole grain and contain a large
amount of white flour, white sugar and preservatives.
Whole grain cereals are
permissible as long as they do not contain sugar. Most of these do contain
some preservatives, but the amount is usually quite small. I do allow my
patients to use some low fat milk or skim milk on their cereal. Whole wheat
macaroni, noodles, spaghetti, etc. are also readily available and are good
sources of protein.
This is an excellent source of
protein. My patients are permitted to have corn-on-the-cob (which may be
cooked), pop corn and corn meal in any form. Corn meal mush, grits and
cornbread are permitted. It is necessary, in order to make cornbread, to use
some egg and some milk. This is not a problem because the amounts of the egg
and milk are quite small.
This is high in protein.
Buckwheat pancakes and pure maple syrup are excellent. Again, in order to make
the buckwheat pancakes, you must use a little egg and milk. This is not a
sufficient amount to cause a problem.
Butter in small amounts is
permitted. Any butter that is used should be real butter rather than any
margarine. Vegetable oil hardened into a solid is detrimental to good
These are an excellent source
of protein. This includes all nuts except the peanut. Roasted peanuts are not
permitted because of an acid that is formed in the roasting. This is not true
of any other nuts. Raw peanuts are permitted, but not roasted peanuts.
Dried fruits, such as dates,
raisins, and figs, are excellent nutrition and provide protein.
Some vegetables, such as those
in the bean family and in the brown rice family, cannot be eaten raw.
Soup beans, lentils, split-pea, navy beans and kidney beans, are an excellent
source of protein and should be an important part of this diet. Of course,
they have to be cooked. Again, I repeat that anything used for its protein
content may be cooked. Meals like bean soup and cornbread provide a complete
protein, as would a meal of beans and brown rice.
Let me emphasize, again, the
necessity of eating raw fruits and raw vegetables. Everything that can be
eaten raw should be eaten raw. So many of the things we cook can be eaten raw.
For example, broccoli, spinach, turnips, potatoes, and green beans can all be
No milk, other than that used on
cereal and in cooking, is permitted. No caffeine is permitted. This means no
coffee, no Sanka, no Decaf, etc. Natural coffee substitutes are permitted
along with any of the herb teas.
I keep my patients on this type
of program for at least four months. It is my opinion, in twenty years of work
in this field, that it takes that long to get this defense mechanism to
function normally. If, at the end of the first four months, the patient is not
doing as well as I would like, I continue the strict diet for as long as
necessary. At the end of four months, if the patient is doing well, I then
liberalize the diet. I will then allow the patient to add chicken, turkey and
fish to his diet. Ninety percent of the diet at that time consists of the
original strict diet plus the chicken, turkey and fish. The other ten percent
of the diet may include red meats, cooked vegetables and dairy products. I
caution my patients that, within any two-weeks period of time, the red meats,
cooked vegetables and dairy products should never exceed more than ten percent
of their total diet.
The patients are told that
they also must stay on their vitamins, enzymes and Laetrile until the
age of 130. They are instructed to call me on their 130th birthday (although
I am not sure what my area code will be at that time), and we will discuss
the possibility of reducing the dosage of some of these. This is simply my
way of emphasizing to the patient the fact that you don't cure cancer.
You can control it as long as the defense mechanisms continue to
function normally. If a patient goes back to his old eating habits, he will
soon be back in trouble again.
Nothing that has been said so far in this book would be of any significance if
them were not some statistics to show that the nutritional approach to the
treatment of cancer offers the cancer patient a greater quality and quantity
of life than does so-called "orthodox" treatment.
A speaker I recently heard
said, "I am not going to bore you with statistics, I am going to do it
another way." Well, I am going to bore you with a few statistics, because
I feel that they are necessary to prove a point.
Let me repeat something that I
said in Chapter Two. Cancer can be divided into two groups. The first group is
known as primary cancer. This is cancer that is confined to a single
area with perhaps a few adjacent lymph nodes involved. The second group is
known as metastatic cancer. This is primary cancer which has
spread into other distant areas of the body.
I consider metastatic cancer
to be almost a different disease than primary cancer. I compare the two
as I would a flood. The river rises, but the levee protects the low-lying
town. Some small low areas may be damaged, but the town, as a whole, survives
nicely. Those small areas can be repaired. Suppose, however, that the levee
begins to break. Water begins to come into the town. This not only causes more
damage, but it also puts more strain on the rest of the levee. This may cause
the entire levee to crumble, and now the whole town is destroyed. Thus, while
the primary cause of both of the above situations was the flood, whether or
not the levee held created two entirely different situations.
is similar to what happens when the levee holds. The damage is small and is
restricted to a small area. With proper care, the body can repair it. Metastatic cancer is similar to what happens when the levee develops a major leak or
breaks entirely. The cancer spreads into distant areas of the body. The damage
to the body is infinitely greater, more serious and more difficult to repair.
Success or failure in the treatment of metastatic cancer depends
entirely on how big is the leak, how long it takes to repair, and whether the
rest of the levee is strong enough to hold until the leak can be repaired.
Thus, while both primary and metastatic cancer result from the
same disease known as "cancer," whether it (the levee) can hold that
disease in a small area or whether that defense mechanism (the levee) breaks
down and allows the disease to spread widely can create two entirely different
It is for this reason that I
separate primary cancer and metastatic cancer into two different
Statistics are meaningless
unless you know how those statistics were derived. In my studies, I went back
through my records from 1974 through the end of 1991. All of the patients that
I included were diagnosed by physicians other than me and their diagnoses were
confirmed by pathology reports. I then compared my results to those of the
American Cancer Society. In this section, I want to give the results of my
study of patients who had primary cancer. I want to stress that in this
section I looked at only those patients whose original diagnosis was primary cancer, with no metasteses at the time. The results of the patients whose
original diagnoses showed metastic disease will be discussed later.
Patients excluded from this
It has been my opinion for
some years that it may take as long as six months of nutritional therapy for
the defense mechanisms of the body to begin to respond. Thus, I excluded from
my study all patients with primary cancer who died within the first six
months of treatment. These were patients whose defense mechanisms had been
badly damaged or completely destroyed by their disease, the treatment they had
received or a combination of both. Almost all of those in this group who were
excluded were patients who had rapidly growing tumors in spite of (or perhaps
because of) all of the radiation and/or chemotherapy they had received. They
had been told by their radiologist and/or oncologist that their treatments had
failed and there was nothing more that could be done. Usually the white blood
ceils and the body's ability to manufacture white blood cells had been
destroyed. The white blood cells are the body's first line of defense against
infection and, as mentioned in Chapter Two, are ultimately responsible for
destroying cancer cells. Some of the patients had developed severe heart
damage, kidney damage, etc. from their treatment. There were, at most, five
patients who had a sudden, complete breakdown of their defense mechanisms and
within a matter of a few weeks developed large, inoperable tumors. In these
cases, no form of treatment was going to be of any value to these patients.
Too much damage had already been done to the body. It was possible in some of
these patients to improve the quality of their lives, but not the quantity.
Patients included in this study:
I have included in this study of
primary cancer patients only those patients with whom I have a follow-up
of at least two years and who were alive at that time. There were a number of
patients left out of this study who were doing well when I last had contact
with them, but that contact was for less than two years. I have also included
in this study those patients who lived at least six months, but subsequently
There are 180 such patients in
this study. Thirty different types of cancer are represented. While none of
these are the ordinary skin cancers, 10 of them are the deadly malignant
melanoma type of skin cancer. From 1974 through 1991, a total of 42 patients
have died. Twenty-three of those patients (12.7%) died from causes related to
Three of the patients
developed metastases while on the program and died. One of them lived 2 years
and died at the age of 73. One of them lived 4 years and died at the age of
76. The third one lived 9 years and died at the age of 56. Five other patients
developed metastatic disease while on the program but are still alive.
Thirty-nine of the patients on
the program did not develop metastases but did die. As mentioned above, 23
died from cancer. Twelve died from causes unrelated to their cancer. Some died
from heart attacks and strokes. One died from choking on food; one from a
ruptured appendix; and one died in the MGM hotel fire in Las Vegas. Seven died
of "cause unknown." These I put in because I had been in contact
with these people less than
two months prior to their
deaths. They were doing well at that time. I was unable to find out the exact
cause of their deaths, but it is difficult for me to believe that these people
died a cancer death in that short a period of time.
What all of this means is that
out of 180 patients, over a period of 18 years, 87.3% did not die from
their disease. Even if I concede that the 7 patients who died of "cause
unknown" did, indeed, die from cancer, I am still looking at 16.7% of
patients who died from their cancer and 83.3% who did not. One hundred and
thirty-eight of these patients are still alive. Fifty-eight of these patients
(42%) have a follow-up of between two years and four years. Eighty of these
patients (58%) have a follow-up of between five and eighteen years. It is
important to realize that this is ongoing. By the end of 1992, some new
patients would come into the two-year category, and those in the four-year
category would move into the five-year category.
I now ask you to compare my
results with the statistics of the American Cancer Society for primary cancer.
The American Cancer Society tells us that in primary cancer, with early
diagnosis and early treatment with surgery, and/or radiation and/or
chemotherapy, eighty-five percent (85%) of the patients will die from
their disease within five years.
Yes, you are going to get more
statistics. All of the patients in the study that follows had metastatic
cancer when I first saw them. It was not I who made the diagnosis of metastatic cancer. These diagnoses were made by other physicians and confirmed by
Patients excluded from this
As I stated previously, it is
my opinion that it takes as long as six months for the defense mechanisms of
the body to respond to nutritional therapy in primary cancer patients.
In metastatic cancer it may take may take as long as one year. Thus, I
have excluded from my study all metastatic cancer patients who died
within the first year of treatment.1 The reason
for this is the same as stated previously. Most of these patients had
developed widespread metastases while on radiation and/or chemotherapy and had
been told that nothing else could be done. The low white blood cell count and
the inability to manufacture white blood cells was there. The heart damage,
kidney damage, etc. was there. The total damage to the entire body was greater
than in primary cancer, and the time needed to repair that damage was
longer. Again, it was possible through nutritional therapy to increase the quality of life of some of these patients, but not the quantity.
Patients included in this study:
I have included in this study
of metastatic cancer only those patients with whom I have a follow-up
of at least two years and who were alive at that time. Again, there were a
number of patients left out of this study who were doing well when I last
contacted them, but that last contact was for less than two years. I have
included in this study all patients who lived at least one year but
There were 108 patients in the
study representing 23 different types of cancer. No ordinary skin cancers were
included, but 4 of the patients had malignant melanoma with metastases.
From the period 1974 through
1991 thirty-two of those patients (29.6%) died from their disease. Seven
patients developed further metastases while on the program. Three of those
seven died from their disease, 3 are still alive and 1 died of a cause
unrelated to his disease. A total of 47 patients died. As stated above, 32
died from cancer. Six died of causes unrelated to their disease, and 9 died of
cause unknown. Again, "cause unknown" is for the same reason that I
used for my primary cancer study.
This means that out of 108
patients with metastatic cancer, over a period of 18 years, 76 of those
patients (70.4%) did not die of their disease. Again, even if I concede that
the 9 patients who died of "cause unknown" did, indeed, die from
their cancer, I am looking at 37.9% who died from their disease and 62.1% who
did not. Sixty-one of those patients are still alive. Thirty of those patients
(49%) had a follow-up of between two and four years. Thirty-one of them (51%)
had a follow-up of between five and eighteen years. Again, you must realize
that this is an ongoing figure, just as I stated for my primary cancer
The American Cancer Society
tells us that in metastatic cancer, with early diagnosis and early
treatment with surgery, and/or radiation and/or chemotherapy, only 0.1% (one
out of one thousand) of those patients will survive 5 years.
If you consider only those
patients who have survived five years or more, this means that my results were
287% better than those reported by the American Cancer Society for the
treatment of metastatic cancer by "orthodox" methods alone.
Following are some case
histories from my files. The full name is given where permission has been
obtained; otherwise, the patient's initials are used.
Case No. 1: Polly Todd
This 59-year-old woman was
seen by me for the first time on 1/10/75 with the history that she had her
left breast removed one month previously because of carcinoma. Three positive
nodes had been found. I will let the patient tell you the rest of her history
in her own words:
"It was recommended by a
prominent physician that I be a part of an experiment in a (then) new
chemotherapy program. For a second opinion I went to another city where I had
a personal contact with the head of a large hospital. There they told me that
my odds of survival were slim, and that I should be treated with strong doses
of chemotherapy and radiation. At this point, a friend told me about the
Laetrile-nutritional program, which I chose."
The lady was placed on a
nutritional program at that time and she has remained on it ever since. She is
now 79 years old, in good health, and she has had no recurrence of her
In a recent letter the patient
said, "None of the above people on the chemotherapy program lived beyond
I 1/2 years. Friends who scoffed at our choice then have much more respect now
because others choosing the conventional treatment are gone, while I
Case No. 2: Sue Tarbutton
This 50 year-old woman was
seen by me for the first time on 10/26/83 with a history that one week before
she had a lump removed from her right breast which was found to be malignant.
She did not want to have a mastectomy and wanted to go on a nutritional
She has now been on the
program for ten years, has had no recurrence of her disease and is quite well.
Case No. 3: Elizabeth Winschel
This 51-year-old woman was
first seen by me on 10/11/76. Four months before she had been found to have
carcinoma of the colon with malignant cells in the abdominal fluid. She had
four chemotherapy treatments but discontinued them because they made her so
ill. She was started on a nutritional program. Now, seventeen years later, she
continues to do well with no recurrence at the primary site of her disease and
Case No. 4: Wasley Krogdahl
This 60-year-old man was first
seen by me on 4/20/79. In November, 1977, he had been diagnosed with having
carcinoma of the urinary bladder. The tumor was removed. In February, 1979,
three more tumors were removed. He was started on a nutritional program. In
April, 1981, and again in November, 1982, some small tumors were removed from
He and his wife came to visit
me just recently. He is now 75 years old. He has had no further recurrence of
his disease. He looks well, says he is feeling well and his wife says,
"He is just as hard-headed as ever."
Case No. 5: Beverly Batson
This 70-year-old woman was
seen by me for the first time on 9/19/88. She had one-half of her stomach
removed one month prior because of carcinoma. She received no radiation or
chemotherapy. She has been on her nutritional program for five years. Now at
the age of 75, she remains well with no recurrence at the primary site or with
Case No. 6: Jean Henshall
This 48-year-old woman, that I
saw for the first time on 9/8/87, had a history of being diagnosed ten months
previously with malignant myeloma (a cancer which affects the bone). Her
disease affected the bones in the pelvic area. She had received some radiation
to that area which relieved the pain. She was started on a nutritional program
which pretty much followed the protocol outlined in Chapter Eleven. However,
after she had been off of her Laetrile injections for a few months, she was
aware that she did not feel as well as she did while on them. She went back on
some injections for a few months, and she felt much better. The injections
were again stopped, and she remained on the Laetrile pills. This time she
noticed no difference. She has now been on the program for six years and is
doing well. "I'm doing everything. Even housework is a joy to me because
I can do it."
Case No. 7: R.H.
This 43-year-old woman was
seen by me for the first time on 10/26/79. Two months prior she had been found
to have carcinoma of the ovary with metastases throughout the abdomen. She
was, at that time, on chemotherapy. We discussed nutritional therapy — what
it would do and what it would not do. I saw her next on 11/13/79. She had two
chemotherapy treatments by this time, but she had decided to discontinue them
and go on a nutritional program.
She stayed on the program
until 1982, decided that she was "cured" at that time and went off
of the program completely. I saw her on 6/19/84. At this time, she had a tumor
running from her right pelvis up into the right upper quadrant of her abdomen.
She went back on her nutritional program. I saw her again on 8/1/84. She was
feeling very well. The edges of the tumor were much softer and much more
difficult to define. When I saw her on 9/2/84, the edges of the tumor were
even softer than before.
I did not see her again until
8/20/85. She had been off of her program for 7 or 8 months. Why? It's a long
story, and because of "privileged information" I am not free to
discuss it. The tumor had enlarged and was now causing abdominal pain and some
swelling in the right leg. I put her back on her program, which included some
Laetrile injections, and recommended that she have the tumor surgically
removed. On 10/1/85, the patient called me to say that she had undergone
surgery. She said that the surgeon had found 5 well walled-off tumors that
were easily removed. The pathology report, she said, showed mostly
"dead" cancer cells.
In 1988 the patient went off
her nutritional program. In 1991 she developed a bowel obstruction from her
cancer and now has a colostomy. She did go back on her program again and has
remained on it. In the three years that have passed since that time, there has
been no recurrence of her disease.
Case No. 8: Joan Dewiel
This 45-year-old woman first
was seen by me on 1/28/80 with a history of having been found to have
carcinoma of the colon in September, 1979. Surgery was done, there were no
metastases, and she received no radiation or chemotherapy. She was placed on a
nutritional program. That was 14 years ago. She is now 59 years old and has
had no recurrence of her disease.
Case No. 9: Rex Perry
This 42-year-old man that I
first saw on 6/27/79 with a history of having malignant lymphoma, which was
originally diagnosed in August, 1978. He had 8 months of chemotherapy, which
he tolerated very well. His doctors felt, however, that there was a
significant amount of disease still present. They wanted to do several more
months of chemotherapy and follow this with total body radiation. The patient
did not want to do this because of his concern about what it would do to his
immune system. He chose, instead, to use the nutritional approach.
It has now been almost 15
years since he started his nutritional therapy. The most satisfying part of
such a case history is that this patient has had no further problem with his
disease. He is well and very active.
Case No. 10: Pauline Wilcox
This 58-year-old woman was
seen by me for the first time on 6/14/85 with a history of having had her left
breast removed because of carcinoma in 1983. She received no radiation or
She was placed on a
nutritional program at that time. Since she had already gone for two years
without any problem, I used only the Laetrile tablets as that part of her
nutritional program. She did well on that program until 1988, when she went
off of her diet and was taking her vitamins, enzymes and Laetrile only now and
then. In November, 1988, she developed a small lesion on her chest wall. This
was removed and found to be a spread of her cancer. She went back on her
nutritional program again, except this time I added a series of intravenous
Laetrile injections. Since then she has had two other small lesions removed
from her chest wall which contained some cancer cells. Most importantly, chest
x-rays and bone scans done on both occasions were normal. She remains in good
health today. As this patient said to me recently, "My doctor is
11: Connie Stork
This 24-year-old woman first
was seen by me on 2/26/75. Her history was that in 1970 she had been
found to have a malignant tumor of the brain. The tumor was partially removed.
This was followed by 25 radiation treatments. In October, 1974, another large
mass of tumor was removed, but much of the tumor remained. She was told that
she had all of the radiation she could have. She was started on a nutritional
Now, some 19 years later,
Connie has had no recurrence of her tumor. She did have greatly impaired
vision as the result of her tumors in 1970 and 1974, and this has progressed
to blindness. However, she is still very much alive and is blessed with a
healthy mind and healthy body.
Case No. 12: Irene Dirks
This 59-year-old woman was
seen for the first time on 8/19/80. Her history was that six weeks before I
saw her she had been found to have a very low hemoglobin (anemia). She was
given blood. Her workup showed that she had a gastric ulcer, but it was
questionable whether she had any bleeding from that ulcer. I discussed with
her at that time a nutritional program that included some changes in her diet,
some vitamins and a small amount of Laetrile by mouth. These changes were
obviously not sufficient, because in March, 1981, she began having occasional
vaginal bleeding. Two months later this bleeding was found to come from
endometrial carcinoma (cancer of the lining of the uterus). A hysterectomy was
done, and she was put on the full nutritional program. Now, some 14 years
later, she has had no recurrence of her disease and at the age of 73 is quite
well and very active.
Case No. 13: Doris Dickson
This 50-year-old woman was
first seen on 5/14/85 with a history of having had a node removed from the
left side of her neck in 1979. From this a diagnosis of lymphatic leukemia was
made. She had one chemotherapy treatment, but this made her so ill she
discontinued it. She went on a nutritional program of her own, which she
stayed on until six months prior to the time I first saw her. She stated that
for the past two or three months she had not felt well and that a recent blood
count showed a 21,000 white cell count. A white cell count done on the day I
saw her was 24,000. (A normal count is about 5,000 to 10,500.)
Mrs. Dickson was started on my
nutritional program. I did not feel in her case that the intravenous Laetrile
was necessary, so I used just the Laetrile tablets as that part of her
program. One month later Mrs. Dickson reported that she was feeling much
better. Her white cell count was down to 17,300. Her white cell count
continued to drop and by November, 1985, it was down to 9,700.
In June, 1991, Mrs. Dickson
reported a gradual increase in fatigue. Her white-cell count was 13,700. I
reviewed her nutritional program and found some slips here-and-there that
needed to be corrected. By October of that year her cell count was down to
10,700. In a recent letter from her, Mrs. Dickson reports that she is doing
Case No. 14: T.P.
This 59-year-old man that was
seen for the first time on 7/18/80. His history was that one month prior to
this a routine x-ray showed a mass in his right lung. A biopsy showed this to
be carcinoma. Five radiation treatments were given followed by one
chemotherapy treatment that made him so ill he discontinued that whole
program. He was started on my nutritional program.
An x-ray done in January,
1981, showed that the tumor in his right lung was completely gone. Let me
quote from a letter I received from him on January 23, 1981:
"They were surprised here
at [hospital name omitted] comparing the x-ray of last June and the one I just
received .... Hope you understand what I am trying to say. I was really
tickled when I learned the tumor was gone, and I thought of you right away. I
know in my heart it was the Amygdalin and will never think differently.
"The doctor I had at the
hospital in June said it was probably the 5 radiation treatments I had. They
just don't want to admit [it was the Amygdalin], I guess."
My last contact with this
patient was in April, 1993. At that time he was doing very well.
Case No. 15: Helyne Victor
This 54-year-old woman was
first seen on 6/7/74. In 1967 she had her right breast removed because of
cancer. In 1970 she had her left breast removed, also because of cancer. She
had received no radiation or chemotherapy after either surgery. While yearly
check-ups had failed to find any spread of her disease, this woman just didn't
feel well and wanted to get on a good nutritional program.
Mrs. Victor tells her story best.
This is from a letter she wrote to the Ohio State Medical Board on April 5,
"My health has not been
good and it was approximately a year ago that I found myself going downhill as
far as my health was concerned, not knowing what to do or to whom to go for
help. My husband and I began to read and research various avenues for
nutritional help or aid.
"I felt very strongly
that my poor health may have been due partly to faulty nutrition. After
reading materials on proper diets. etc.. I heard of Dr. Binzel and had heard
that he did treat patients with a nutritional program. So, I called him and
made an appointment ....
"Following a good diet,
as he suggested, and taking multiple vitamins for the past year, I can
honestly say that I feel like a different person. My health has improved 100%,
and I'm feeling like my old self and extremely happy with the results....
Mrs. Victor continues to do
well. She is now 74 years old and in a recent letter she said of herself and
her husband, "We enjoy life and travel a lot."
Case No. 16: M.S.
This 62-year-old woman was
first seen on 12/6/78. One month previously she had a mole removed from her
back. This mole turned out to be a malignant melanoma. She had no radiation or
She was placed on a
nutritional program. She is now 77 years old, quite well and quite active. She
has had small a skin cancer removed from her face, but this was not melanoma
and was unrelated to her previous disease.
I bring this case to your
attention because melanoma is a highly malignant disease which frequently
metastasizes rapidly to the liver. This woman was one of 10 patients that I
saw with primary malignant melanoma (it had not spread to any other area). To
the best of my knowledge, none of those patients have developed metastatic
Case No. 17: B.D.
This 62-year-old woman was
seen by me for the first time on 5/22/84. In January, 1980, she had been found
to have malignant lymphoma. She received chemotherapy from January, 1980.
through November, 1980. In March, 1982, she developed a small nodule in the
back portion of her left neck area and a few months later a larger nodule in
the right mandibular angle (jaw). She placed herself on a pretty good
nutritional program at that time and the nodules had not progressed at all in
I up-graded the nutritional
program of this patient by adding Vitamin A and Laetrile to what she was
already doing. She was followed closely by her family doctor for the next two
years. He could not detect any enlargements of these nodules. I saw her again
on 4/30/86. I felt that the nodule in the right mandibular angle was the same
size as before but was firmer and more movable. I thought the nodule on the
left side of the neck was the same size but much firmer than before. The next
time I saw this patient was on 2/18/91. I could not find any nodules at all.
It has now been 10 years since
she started on her nutritional program. In a recent letter she said, "I
am doing well and leading an active life...I continue to take all of the
vitamins that you prescribed and I never miss a dose."
Case No. 18: B.W.
This 44-year-old woman was
seen for the first time on 2/6/81. She had been found one month prior to have
carcinoma of the descending colon with 7 positive lymph nodes. A colostomy was
not required. She received no radiation or chemotherapy.
She was started on a
nutritional program. Now. some 13 years later, she has had no recurrence of
her disease and leads a normal, active life.
What is so unusual about this
patient? She had cancer of the colon with metastases. The odds of her
surviving 5 years were one in one-thousand. Yet, she lives a normal life with
no recurrence of her disease after 13 years.
Case No. 19: Alice Silverthorn
This 46-year-old woman was
seen by me for the first time on 1/5/76. Her left breast had been removed in
1971 because of carcinoma. This was followed by radiation and chemotherapy.
She had just been told that her disease had now spread to the cervical
vertebrae (neck), her left rib cage and the vertebrae in her lower back. Her
doctors wanted to give her more chemotherapy, but she did not want it. She
wanted to go on a nutritional program.
When she started her
nutritional program, she was having much pain. Within a month, the pain began
to subside. In April, 1976, she began having more pain in her rib cage and in
her lower back. She was put back on her intravenous Laetrile three times
weekly for two weeks. The pain again subsided. In August of that year she
began to have some pain once more in her rib cage. She was given intravenous
Laetrile twice weekly for three weeks. Again the pain subsided. It has now
been 18 years since she first started on her program. She is 64 years old and
doing very well.
Let me share with you part of
a letter I recently received from Mrs. Silverthorn:
"I remember only too well
the fear and desperation, yes, and downright helplessness, I felt when the
doctors at (hospital name deleted) told me the cancer had metastasized to my
bones. It was a sentence of 'death.' I was told I would need to start
chemo-treatments immediately. There was even talk of taking the pituitary
gland out at some later date. I had already had a radical left breast
operation and was treated with mustard gas, cobalt and male hormones. I had
enough of torture! ! !
"When a friend told me
about your nutritional approach to treating diseases, 1 was ready to try it.
Even though we both knew my chances of survival were slim, together, we were
willing to take on the challenge of fighting for my life. Now, thank God, you
can claim me as one of your survivors.
"I hope you include in
your book how we feel, and just how difficult it is for those of us who were
supposed to die, when the medical profession and well-meaning, intelligent
people make the suggestion that the only reason we are alive is because it was
a mis-diagnosis or the disease has gone into a 'spontaneous' remission. Most
people make us feel like psychiatric patients. It is difficult to explain
miracles, yet, that is what happened."
Case No. 20: Grace Laman
This 59-year-old woman was
seen for the first time on 10/5/76. She had been diagnosed as having carcinoma
of the pancreas six months prior to this. The only thing that had been done
surgically was to run a tube from her bile duct to the outside. She was on
chemotherapy for two months but stopped it herself because it made her so ill.
She was told at that time that she had only 6 months to live. She was placed
on a nutritional program.
Let me quote part of a letter I
received from her almost two years later (9/23/78):
"I was [recently] put
through a new scanner which showed that my tumor had reduced to the size of a
tennis ball. It had been the size of [the doctor's] hand, so he said."
Now, 18 years later, she is 77
years old. In the letter which accompanied her picture she said, "This is
my activity picture of me eating out, which I do very well."
Note: With surgery and/or
radiation and/or chemotherapy the chances of surviving more than one year with
cancer of the pancreas are about I in 10,000.
Case No. 21:
This 57-year-old man was first
seen on 4/28/92 (and for that reason is not included in my statistical study)
with a history of a diagnosis of carcinoma of the left lung 10 months
previously. Surgery had been done followed by one chemotherapy treatment. This
made him so ill that he discontinued it. He was then given 25 radiation
treatments ending in December, 1991. In March, 1992, x-rays showed extensive
growth of the tumors in that lung. He was placed on a nutritional program.
X-rays done in July, 1993,
showed no further growth of the tumors in the left lung. X-rays done in
November, 1993, showed that the tumors had all become scar tissue. In the most
recent letter I received from him he stated that he was feeling so well that
"I have no right to complain, so I have to cuss a lot about taxes,
These statistics and case
histories have focused primarily upon the extension of the patient's life
span. That's certainly important, but the quality of life is also
important. We will deal with that issue next.
is customary protocol. Cancer statistics based on orthodox therapies also
eliminate those with incompleted therapy.