Sunday, February 11, 2007

Mercury Laced Flu Shots Recommended For Pregnant Women & Children

By: Press Release


February 11, 2007

How and when does this make sense? Thimerosal is made of mercury. Mercury is 1000x more toxic than lead. In drinking water, mercury cannot exceed 2 parts per billion. With more than 200 parts per billion of mercury, liquid is considered hazardous waste. A mercury-containing flu shot vial has 50,000 parts per billion of mercury. How can something with 250x the mercury level of hazardous waste be deemed safe? Personally, I would rather build my child's immune system than subject their developing nervous systems and organs to a known highly toxic substance. (My personal opinion)

Flu Vaccine Facts

"I think it's absolutely criminal to give mercury to an infant." - Boyd Haley, Ph.D., Chemistry Department Chair, University of Kentucky

"The committee accepts that under certain conditions, infections and heavy metals, including thimerosal [mercury preservative in vaccines], can injure the nervous system." - Dr. Marie McCormick, Chairperson and co-author of the 2004 Institute of Medicine Report often cited by journalists that mercury in vaccines is somehow "safe".

• PutChildrenFirst commissioned a survey by Zogby International of more than 9,000 Americans regarding their views of mercury in flu shots. Results of the survey include:

- 76% of respondents are unaware that most flu shots contain mercury.
- After learning that mercury is an ingredient, 74% are less likely to get a flu shot and 86% say they are less likely to get their child a flu shot.
- 77% believe mercury should not be an ingredient in flu shots given to pregnant women and children.
- 73% believe the government should warn pregnant women not to get a flu shot if it contains mercury.
- More than 70% agree that Congress, doctors and medical groups (e.g., the American Academy of Pediatrics) should take responsibility for ensuring vaccines do not contain mercury.
- 80% of respondents and 84% of parents are willing to pay the $2.50 additional cost for a mercury-free flu shot.

• Approximately 115 million doses of flu vaccine will be available during the 2006-2007 flu season from 4 different vaccine manufacturers

• More than 90% of this year's flu vaccine supply will contain 25 micrograms of mercury, which means there is not enough mercury-free flu vaccine available for children under the age of 3 and pregnant women (8 million being made versus a 15-20 million estimated need)

• A Sanofi-Pasteur spokesman, the only vaccine manufacturer making Thimerosal-free flu vaccines, confirmed that enough vaccine to supply all children could be made, and in this article he noted "he had no idea why health officials were not ordering more mercury-free vaccine."

• The CDC's cost for a mercury containing vial of flu vaccine is $9.71. A comparable mercury-free package (each with 10 doses) costs $12.02

• Thimerosal has never been tested for safety and no proof exists that it is safe. On the contrary, there are thousands of documents in the literature that discuss its extreme toxicity, starting with Thimerosal's own Material Safety Data Sheet that, amongst other things, states:

"Exposure Guidelines: Thimerosal - no known occupational limits established... Exposure to mercury in utero and in children can cause mild to severe mental retardation and mild to severe motor coordination impairment... Target Organ Effects: Mercury - Nervous system effects (insomnia, tremor, anorexia, weakness, headache), liver effects (jaundice, digestive effects (hypermotility, diarrhea)."

• In drinking water, mercury cannot exceed 2 parts per billion. With more than 200 parts per billion of mercury, liquid is considered hazardous waste. A mercury-containing flu shot vial has 50,000 parts per billion of mercury. How can something with 250x the mercury level of hazardous waste be deemed safe?

• The Centers for Disease Control released a study in Pediatrics that cited a correlation between Thimerosal-containing vaccines and both "tics" and "language delay" in children

• California is the only state this year with a ban of Thimerosal-containing flu shots for pregnant women and children under 3

• Six additional states have passed laws banning mercury from vaccines: New York, Illinois, Missouri, Iowa, Delaware, and Washington with many more considering legislation, but the legislation has not been phased in for the 2006-2007 flu season

• Seven years ago, in 1999, a joint statement by the Public Health Service encouraged manufacturers to remove Thimerosal from all vaccines for children as soon as possible:

"Because any potential risk is of concern, the Public Health Service, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and vaccine manufacturers agree that thimerosal-containing vaccines should be removed as soon as possible. Similar conclusions were reached this year in a meeting attended by European regulatory agencies, the European vaccine manufacturers, and the US FDA which examined the use of thimerosal-containing vaccines produced or sold in European countries." - Joint Statement of The American Academy of Pediatrics and the Public Health Service (FDA & CDC), July 7, 1999, 4:15pm

• Because of the addition of the flu shot in to the recommended schedule for childhood vaccinations in 2005, the level of mercury our children are receiving is actually on the rise again, as this recent article from UPI "Mercury Creeps Back In", points out. You can also look at this chart - children by the age of 5 will receive 53% of the mercury received by children at the peak of mercury exposure in the mid-1990s.

• Thimerosal is made of mercury. Mercury is 1000x more toxic than lead. If lead were in vaccines, the world would be in an uproar because lead's toxicity is well known, and thimerosal is ONE THOUSAND TIMES WORSE. Some of the many studies documenting Thimerosal's extreme toxicity, at levels well below what our children receive through vaccines, include:

Comparison of Blood and Brain Mercury Levels in Infant Monkeys Exposed to Methylmercury or Vaccines Containing Thimerosal

Uncoupling of ATP-mediated Calcium Signaling and Dysregulated IL-6 Secretion in Dendritic Cells by Nanomolar Thimerosal

Thimerosal induces neuronal cell apoptosis by causing cytochrome c and apoptosis-inducing factor release from mitochondria

Thimerosal Neurotoxicity is Associated With Glutathione Depletion: Protection with Glutathione Precursors

Activation of Methionine Synthase by Insulin-like Growth Factor-1 and Dopamine: a Target for Neurodevelopmental Toxins and Thimerosal

Thimerosal Induces DNA Breaks, Caspase-3 Activation, Membrane Damage, and Cell Death in Cultured Human Neurons and Fibroblasts

• A recent study was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association touting the safety of flu vaccine. Nine of the studies authors had stated financial ties to vaccine manufacturers, and an additional four authors worked for the CDC. The study also stated:

"It is also important to note that there is scant data on the efficacy and effectiveness of influenza vaccine in young children."

• On October 27, 2006, the British Medical Journal published an article also questioning the efficacy of the flu vaccine. The article noted:

"Evidence from systematic reviews shows that inactivated vaccines [flu vaccines] have little or no effect on the effects measured. Little comparative evidence exists on the safety of these vaccines. Reasons for the current gap between policy and evidence are unclear, but given the huge resources involved, a re-evaluation should be urgently undertaken...

...The optimistic and confident tone of some predictions of viral circulation and of the impact of inactivated vaccines, which are at odds with the evidence, is striking."

• A recent British Medical Journal article reported that CDC materially exaggerates the actual number of deaths from flu each year and uses fear to increase vaccination rates:

US data on influenza deaths are a mess. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) acknowledges a difference between flu death and flu associated death yet uses the terms interchangeably. Additionally, there are significant statistical incompatibilities between official estimates and national vital statistics data. Compounding these problems is a marketing of fear - a CDC communications strategy in which medical experts "predict dire outcomes" during flu seasons.

At the 2004 "National Influenza Vaccine Summit," co-sponsored by CDC and the American Medical Association, Glen Nowak, associate director for communications at the NIP, spoke on using the media to boost demand for the vaccine. One step of a "Seven-Step `Recipe' for Generating Interest in, and Demand for, Flu (or any other) Vaccination" occurs when "medical experts and public health authorities publicly...state concern and alarm (and predict dire outcomes) - and urge influenza vaccination"

• Many are surprised to learn that the Thimerosal bottle label has a skull and crossbones on it. If a bottle of Thimerosal were spilled inside a school or office, the entire building would have to be evacuated and a hazardous waste clean-up initiated.

Origination of story can be found here:

Natural Alternatives

Mercury Detox

Monday, February 05, 2007

Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?

Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?

By Timothy Ball

Monday, February 5, 2007

Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not
the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the
truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was the first Canadian
Ph.D. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in
climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the
impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few
listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the
University of London, England and that for 32 years I was a Professor
of Climatology at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many),the World is not listening.
Here is why.

What would happen if tomorrow we were told that, after all, the Earth
is flat? It would probably be the most important piece of news in the
media and would generate a lot of debate. So why is it that when
scientists who have studied the Global Warming phenomenon for years
say that humans are not the cause nobody listens? Why does no one
acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes on?

Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of
Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the
history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of
dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an
issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment
Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years
dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend
an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing
weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.

No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if
we don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a
society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that
we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri
A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this
statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?

Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global
cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. "It is a cold fact:
the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social,
political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten
thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is
of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our
species," wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.

I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling
engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me
stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has
warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice
Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate
changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily
by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.

Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of
London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate
cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early
1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus
is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have
reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll
witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the
global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.

No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks
and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my
personal life during the last years makes me understand why most
people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals.
Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing
wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent.

I once received a three page letter that my lawyer defined as
libellous, from an academic colleague, saying I had no right to say
what I was saying, especially in public lectures. Sadly, my experience
is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society.
This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding
from governments that demand a particular viewpoint.

In another instance, I was accused by Canadian environmentalist David
Suzuki of being paid by oil companies. That is a lie. Apparently he
thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda. So if
Greenpeace, Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only
truth and enlightenment?

Personal attacks are difficult and shouldn't occur in a debate in a
civilized society. I can only consider them from what they imply. They
usually indicate a person or group is losing the debate. In this case,
they also indicate how political the entire Global Warming debate has
become. Both underline the lack of or even contradictory nature of the

I am not alone in this journey against the prevalent myth. Several
well-known names have also raised their voices. Michael Crichton, the
scientist, writer and filmmaker is one of them. In his latest book,
"State of Fear" he takes time to explain, often in surprising detail,
the flawed science behind Global Warming and other imagined environmental crises.

Another cry in the wildenerness is Richard Lindzen's. He is an
atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned
for his research in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric
waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has
held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and
MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant
Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen.

I think it may be because most people don't understand the scientific
method which Thomas Kuhn so skilfully and briefly set out in his book
"The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." A scientist makes certain
assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the
assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an
atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It
was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than
before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted
before testing had started, and effectively became a law.

As Lindzen said many years ago: "the consensus was reached before the
research had even begun." Now, any scientist who dares to question the
prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact
they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening
levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier
with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal
scientific method is effectively being thwarted.

Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even though most of them
have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science
of climate and climate change. Hence, they are in no position to
question a policy on climate change when it threatens the entire
planet. Moreover, using fear and creating hysteria makes it very
difficult to make calm rational decisions about issues needing attention.

Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have no idea how
nasty people can be. Until you have re-examined any issue in an
attempt to find out all the information, you cannot know how much
misinformation exists in the supposed age of information.

I was greatly influenced several years ago by Aaron Wildavsky's book
"Yes, but is it true?" The author taught political science at a New
York University and realized how science was being influenced by and
apparently misused by politics. He gave his graduate students an
assignment to pursue the science behind a policy generated by a highly
publicised environmental concern. To his and their surprise they found
there was little scientific evidence, consensus and justification for
the policy. You only realize the extent to which Wildavsky's findings
occur when you ask the question he posed. Wildavsky's students did it
in the safety of academia and with the excuse that it was an
assignment. I have learned it is a difficult question to ask in the
real world, however I firmly believe it is the most important question to ask if we are to advance in the right direction.

Dr. Tim Ball, Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project
(, is a Victoria-based environmental consultant and
former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. He can be
reached at

Hmmm... You mean we have a right to think for ourselves? I thought the Newspapers and TV news told us what to think. I mean who wouldn't trust Al Gore? If Enron was pushing for Kyoto, it must be good, right? I am glad we survived global cooling 30 years ago- whew, that was a close one!

Natural Health - We Won't Tell You What to Think

Sunday, February 04, 2007

Can Cancer Be Avoided Or Cured With Vitamin B-17?

By Dr. James Howenstine, MD.
January 28, 2007

Biochemist Ernst T. Krebs Jr. proposed that cancer was caused by a deficiency of Vitamin B 17 (Laetrile, Amygdaline).No person eating a high nitriloside(Vitamin B 17) diet (Hunzas, Eskimos, Hopi Indians) or voluntarily taking a high intake of nitriloside containing foods has ever developed cancer.[1] Diseases caused by deficiency of Vitamins scurvy (Vitamin C) and pellagra (Vitamin B3 Niacin) have been great mysteries to conventional medicine long after the cure for the disease was well documented. Cancer appears to be a similar mystery.

With the shift in consumption of food in the United States many foods high in nitrilosides (laetrile) are no longer eaten (millet was replaced by wheat) and other foods not containing laetrile have become widely consumed (packaged foods). The food with the highest quantity of Vitamin B-17(laetrile) is in the pit of apricots. Apricot trees are prized by the Hunzas who eat plentiful amounts of the pit substance. Hunzas are known for their vitality, good health and longevity. Many live to be 100 years old and are able to perform hard physical labor all their lives. They never develop cancer until they leave their homeland and start eating new food. Eskimos obtain large amounts of laetrile from caribou meat and salmon berries. Laetrile can be obtained from almonds, macadamia, buckwheat and millet.

There are more than 1200 plants that contain laetrile(Vitamin B 17). Many seeds contain laetrile (grapes, peaches, apples, pears, plums, nectarines, strawberries, raspberries etc). The seed is responsible for providing the nutrients needed to generate the whole plant or tree so it is not surprising that seeds are a concentrated source of nutrition full of vitamins that encourage growth. The apricot pit has the highest content of laetrile of any plant and it’s. hard outer shell protects the central portion of the pit from becoming dehydrated. When the pit is cracked there is a soft central portion that contains laetrile which has a bitter taste. Stevia can improve the taste of apricot pits. Nitrilosides contribute flavor to food.

Other foods that supply Vitamin B 17 include sorghum, maize, grasses, linseed, millet and bitter almonds. Sugar cane has largely replaced sorghum and wheat has replaced millet in North American eating patterns.

Pets can often be observed eating high nitriloside grasses when they become ill. Bears eat the viscera and rumen of their prey along with salmon berries all of which are high in nitrilosides. Five bears in the San Diego zoo have died of cancer. These bears are fed western food not containing laetrile. Healthy animals shot by hunters are never found to have cancer.

How Does Laetrile Work?

More than 100 years ago, brilliant biologist Dr. James Beard of Scotland proposed that pancreatic enzymes had an important role in preventing cancer. Careful microscopic review of tissue slides revealed to him that stem cells, which have the capability to become cells of any tissue in the body, were identical to the trophoblast cells that invade the uterus in the initial stage of a pregnancy. Wherever damage to body tissues from chemicals, infection, stress or injury occurs there is prompt release of estrogen at the injury site. This estrogen immediately promotes rapid growth of cells to speed healing.

This invasion of the uterus to establish the placenta and umbilical cord is initiated by the contact between estrogen and stem cells. This converts stem cells into trophoblastic cells. The appearance and behavior of the trophoblast cells entering uterine muscle can not be distinguished from the appearance of cancer cells invading tissues. When the pancreas secretes trypsin at 8 weeks of the embryo’s life there is prompt disappearance of all trophoblastic tissue.

White blood cells are responsible for killing infectious organisms and tumor cells. Prior to secretion of trypsin into the small intestine at 8 weeks white blood cells are prevented from attacking the trophoblastic tissue by the fact that the trophoblast has a layer of tissue surrounding it with a negative charge. The white blood cell also has a negative charge so these two tissues(white blood cell and trophoblast) repel each other. When trypsin appears in the small intestine at 8 weeks of pregnancy via the pancreatic duct the substance covering the trophoblast becomes dissolved by blood borne trypsin and the trophoblast no longer has a negative charge. It is immediately dissolved and digested by white blood cells.. In a brief period of time there is complete disappearance of trophoblast tissue from the uterus brought about by the appearance of trypsin in the blood. Cancer of the duodenum is quite rare probably reflecting this protective effect of trypsin in duodenal secretions. High doses of potent enzymes have enabled patients with pancreatic cancer and other malignancies to recover.

When trypsin begins to be absorbed into the blood it passes throughout the body. From this moment on trypsin can rid the body of abnormal cells and damaged stem cells. The stem cell(trophoblast) produces chorionic gonadotropin which appears in the urine.. Of considerable importance to Beard’s theory about carcinogenesis it has now been documented that at least 80% of cancers[2] have chorionic gonadotropin in their urine which originates in rapidly growing trophoblastic tissue(malignant stem cells). Damage to the pancreas from aging, toxic metal exposure(mercury, cadmium, arsenic, uranium, iron, lead etc.), lack of essential omega 3 fatty acids, excessive consumption of sugar, alcoholism, diabetes, Co Q 10 deficiency, and acidosis with hypoxia in tissues due to arteriosclerosis could all contribute to relative pancreatic failure with decreased enzyme output that allows stem cells (trophoblasts) to proliferate in an abnormal way(cancer)..

Recent research provides some interesting insight into the stem cells that were studied by Dr. Beard. Stem cells seem to have a tendency to become malignant. Cancer stem cells[3] have now been identified in blood malignancies, brain tumors and breast tumors. Dr. Michael Clarke and Dr. Mohammed Al-Haji at the University of Michigan have demonstrated that not all tumor cells are equally capable of causing spread of cancer (metastatic cancer). In experimental cancers, it was learned that less than 1% of tumor cells were able to cause metastatic cancer. The highly malignant 1% of cells have been identified as stem cells.

In 2005, Jean Marie Houghton MD, PhD of the University of Massachusetts, Worcester showed that in certain stomach cancers, the cells that initiate the malignancy did not originate in the stomach. These were shown to be stem cells that had migrated to the stomach from the bone marrow in response to a low grade stomach infection with Helicobacter pylori organisms. The bone marrow derived cells (BMDC) are sent to the stomach to fight the infection as the body tries to heal itself. After arriving in the stomach the BMDC assume the physical characteristics of stomach cells, but when influenced by hormonal signals from inflammatory tissue, they undergo malignant change. This sheds light on how stem cells are involved in the origin and progression of cancer. It seems possible that marginal success with current drugs for myeloid leukemia (white cell derived) might relate to their lack of affect on the malignant stem cells that appear to be causing the cancer.

Amygdaline(laetrile) contains 2 molecules of sugar, one molecule of benzaldehyde and a cyanide radical.. This is quite stable in normal cells but can be broken apart in cancer cells which are the only site of the enzyme beta-glucosidase. The quantity of beta-glucosidase in cancer cells is 3000 times the quantity found in normal cells. When laetrile is lysed by beta-glucosidase HCN(hydrogen cyanide) forms in the cancer cell and promptly destroys the cell. This limited method of release of HCN ensures that laetrile therapy is completely safe.

The quantity of the enzyme rhodanese is high in normal cells and absent in cancer cells. This enzyme is able to prevent the release of cyanide in healthy cells. Because rhodanese is absent in cancer cells there is nothing to stop the release of cyanide from amygdaline and the cancer cell is immediately destroyed. In this remarkable way the Creator of the Universe was able to design a mechanism to destroy cancer cells while protecting healthy cells from the cyanide radical found in Vitamin B-17.

In treating patients with laetrile it is vital that patients receive zinc, Vitamin C, Vitamin B, Vitamin E, pancreatic enzymes and antioxidants. Zinc is the transport mechanism for both laetrile and nitrilosides. Thus absence of zinc will prevent either laetrile or nitrilosides from entering the body. Zinc is a key part of enzymatic reactions that becomes disabled by the presence of toxic metals in the body. These toxic metals cause a slowdown or shutdown of the chemical reactions dependent on enzymes that contain zinc. For this reason the removal of toxic metals is an important part of the therapy in patients with cancer.

Standard pharmacology textbooks for more than a 100 years have always given laetrile a perfect safety approval. Reputable scientist Dr. Dean Burk, head of the Cytochemistry Department at the National Cancer Institute reported that when laetrile was added to a culture of cancer cells[4] “The cancer cells died like flies until none were left.”

What Are the Results In Treating Cancer With Laetrile?

More than 25 papers about laetrile have been published. Reputable scientists like Dr. Hans Nieper of Hanover, Germany and Dr. Francisco Contreras of Oasis of Hope Hospital in Tijuana, Mexico have reported good results in cancer patients using laetrile.

White rats taking 70 times the equivalent human dose of laetrile remained well but did have better appetites, better health and weight gain which would be expected from a vitamin therapy.

Humans with cancer taking laetrile have shown lower blood pressure and disappearance of both anemia and pain. The release of benzaldehyde, which is known to effectively treat pain affords a possible explanation for the disappearance of pain. The unfavorable reports about laetrile and cancer are because of usage of tiny doses of laetrile which could not be expected to work or fabrication and denial of favorable results.

Case Reports

#1 David Edmonds in June 1971 developed colon cancer that had penetrated into the bladder. This was treated with a colostomy. Six months after the initiation of laetrile therapy the bladder cancer had disappeared and his colostomy was returned to a normal bowel connection.

#2 In 1967 Joan Wilkinson presented with a large thigh malignancy. She was initially treated with chemotherapy but the mass reappeared along with tumor spread into lungs, bladder and pelvis. Amputation was suggested but she took laetrile with disappearance of the mass and tumor from lungs, bladder and pelvis.

#3 A podiatrist, Dr. Dale Danner of Santa Paula, Ca., in 1972 developed lung cancer in both lungs with a painful right thigh mass where tumor had spread from his lung. He placed a 10 day supply of laetrile into an artery in one massive dose. He awoke 36 hours later with resolution of his cough, thigh mass and pain. He began conventional doses of laetrile and returned to work several months later.

#4 Alicia Buttons(Red’s wife) She had “hopeless” advanced throat cancer. She went to Dr. Hans Nieper in Hanover, Germany who treated her with laetrile. She was alive and well 23 years later.

#5 Carol Vencious This 20 year old student nurse developed a swelling in the occipital area associated with tumors in the right acetabulum(hip) and cervical spine. Biopsy showed a malignant tumor thought to possibly be an amelanotic melanoma. Chemotherapy made her very sick. She went to the Richardson Cancer Clinic where she was treated with a metabolic program including laetrile. She made a complete recovery and later delivered a healthy daughter.

In advanced cancers that have metastasized to many sites about 15% recover[5] with laetrile therapy. Conventional therapy with chemotherapy and radiation fails to cure this form of cancer. Patients who have never been injured by chemotherapy or radiation have significantly better recovery rates than patients who have received chemotherapy and radiation. Eighty percent of early cancers are cured with laetrile. Conventional cancer therapy cures about 15% of similar cases. No person taking laetrile has ever developed cancer. Cancer patients who have responded favorably to laetrile do not relapse when they are maintained on laetrile therapy.

Laetrile can be given intravenously, intramuscularly and orally. A large intravenous or intramuscular dosage would be 2 or 3 grams given daily or several times weekly. Orally several apricot pits daily can be combined with amygdaline(there is no need to take more pits than you would eat of apricot fruit). This is suggested possibly because there may be an ingredient of value in the natural substance not necessarily found in the capsules. Patients with advanced cancers should receive at least two 500 mg amygdaline capsules three times daily along with several apricot pits daily. If there is no sign of improvement large doses should be given intramuscularly or intravenously as some patients may need large doses to recover. The center of the pit contains a soft bitter substance (laetrile) which will need flavoring with stevia to become palatable.

Fresh apricot pits are probably more valuable as therapy than dried pits. For this reason try to plant apricot trees on your land if you live in a suitable climate. Governmental regulations refuse to permit the sale of raw apricot pits.

Improvement in cancer may begin to be noticed after 30 or 40 grams of laetrile have been taken. Before abandoning laetrile large doses, which are quite safe, should be given. If a patient recovers from a malignancy with laetrile it is imperative that maintenance doses of laetrile be continued for a lifetime as relapse is common when laetrile is stopped.

There appears to be better results in persons who have never received chemotherapy or radiation which damages the immune system. For this reason I recommend trying laetrile before using chemotherapy or radiation. Remember most oncologists would refuse to take themselves or allow family members to receive these two dangerous therapies. This may be simplistic but why would you want to be made sick so you might get well. Doesn’t it make better sense to strengthen the immune system and detoxify rather than creating sickness with toxic therapies?

Apricot pits and amygdaline capsules 100 and 500 mg can be obtained from Apricot Products 866-468-7487, Apricot Power 1-866-4687487 and Medicina Alternativa 1-888-281-6663


1, Griffin, G.Edward. World Without Cancer (audiotape) American Media, Box 4646, Westlake village, Ca. 91359 800-595-6506
2, Link between trophoblasts and cancer corroborated
3, Moss, Ralph W. Feverfew and Cancer Townsend Letter for Doctors & Patients #264 July 2005 pg 20
4, Griffin G. Edward ibid
5, Griffin, Edward World Without Cancer Audiotape (800) 595-6596

© 2006 Dr. James Howenstine - All Rights Reserved

Original story can be found here:

Natural Cancer Killer