The Health Plus Letter
June 29, 2004, Vol. 2, No. 21
By Larry Trivieri, Jr. – founder & publisher,
http://www.1healthyworld.com

If you prefer to read this issue online, you can read it, along with all other back issues, at http://www.1healthyworld.com/ezine.


Special Issue – Deconstructing Health Stories in the Media

This week I’m breaking with my usual newsletter format in order to focus on the blatant inaccuracies that so regularly appear in the media these days in stories purporting to objectively report the latest news regarding approaches to health care that do not rely upon pharmaceutical drugs and/or surgeries. In recent months, in tandem with legislation being proposed in Congress to curtail our medical freedom of choice, a slew of such stories has regularly appeared in the media—far more than I can comment on. At least one new story along these lines seems to appear each and every day.

I don’t believe this is coincidence. I believe, as health freedom advocate Tim Bolen (see http://www.bolenreport.com) maintains, that Big Pharma, in collusion with other special interests and various governmental agencies (principally the Food and Drug Administration and the Federal Trade Commission), is actively engaged in a wide-ranging PR campaign to slowly yet inexorably convince the public that holistic and alternative medical approaches are dangerous and should be restricted.

To achieve this end, the so-called powers-that-be are doing all they can to plant stories in the press and on television and radio that are rife with factoids and short on facts. As the series I ran by Dr. Abram Hoffer (see Facts vs. Factoids, The Health Plus Letter  Vol.2, Nos. 18-20) in the previous three weeks made clear, facts are based on the truth, whereas factoids are assumed to be true and taken as gospel, when in fact they often have no basis in truth whatsoever. But with mainstream media journalists becoming ever more passive and complacent, and simultaneously less willing and able, it seems, to engage in actual investigative reporting, it is very easy for Big Pharma and its allies to plant factoid-ridden new stories in the media on a regular basis. In fact, these days, all they have to do is craft the story with the help of their PR firms as if it were actually written by a journalist (or, in the case of television and cable news shows, produced as a documentary-style video piece), and then submit it to media outlets whose journalists are all too willing to add their byline and run the story as if they wrote it themselves.

I know this sounds far-fetched, but research shows that as much as 85 percent of all news stories in the mainstream media of the United States are created this way. And even when journalists are willing to do their jobs properly, all too often they lack the expertise necessary to know what to research and whom to speak to in order to accurately obtain the information their news stories require. The result is that they rely upon the medical experts Big Pharma selects for them. This isn’t true in all cases, of course, but it is something we, as lay consumers, need to be aware of as we make our health choices.

To illustrate the point I’m making, I am including in this issue two recent news stories, one of which ran on MSNBC.com, the other of which was a press release issued by the FDA that the media ran without comment or question. You’ll find my commentary in brackets and italicized within each article, illustrating each story’s embedded inaccuracies. Bear them in mind the next time you read, watch or hear another news story about alternative approaches to health.

The first story has to do with whether or not nutritional supplements can play a role in preventing cancer. Here’s the story as it ran on MSNBC:

<<Can cancer be prevented with a vitamin pill?
Consumer fears fuel dietary supplement industry.

Americans spend $18 billion a year on dietary supplements in the hopes of warding off cancer and other maladies.
By Jane Weaver, Health Editor, MSNBC (Posted on MSNBC.com at 6:28 p.m. ET June 21, 2004)

There may be no disease Americans fear more. Sure, there's been progress in treating cancer and death rates continue to decline, yet it remains the illness whose name we fear to speak. [Note the tone of fear that is created by this lead-in paragraph. Note too the unchallenged statement that progress has been made in treating cancer conventionally. If extending lifespan without improving quality of life is considered progress, then, yes, the cancer industry can claim to have made some progress, but overall, despite many tens of billions of dollars spent on cancer research and culled from taxpayer dollars, the cancer industry’s success rate is actually an abysmal failure, as evidenced by the fact that when the so-called war on cancer began in 1971, 1 in 10 people were likely to develop cancer in the U.S. Today, that likelihood is as high as 1 in 2. This is progress?]

Once it strikes, the road to survival is costly, physically, psychologically and financially. Beating cancer can mean surgery, painful chemotherapy and other treatments, and the constant dread of recurrence for many years later. [All true, so far as these statements go, but none of the above is an absolute given. There are safer, less expensive approaches for treating cancer more effectively and successfully, which for the most part are completely ignored or negatively portrayed by the cancer establishment.] No wonder tens of millions of Americans are focusing more attention on cancer prevention as a way to live to a healthy old age. [Indeed! Can you blame them?]

In fact, anxiety over the 'C' word, along with other diseases associated with aging, has helped turn the dietary supplement industry into an $18 billion a year business. [Big Pharma, by contrast, spends a similar sum each year in advertising alone, racking up profits of well over $100 billion annually. Still, Big Pharma isn’t at all happy that $18 billion is going to their competition.] An estimated 150 million Americans have taken a supplement in the last year, according to the Council for Responsible Nutrition, a Washington-based trade association for the supplement industry. [I give Weaver credit for at least including CRN in this article. To learn more about them, visit http://www.crnusa.org.]

Baby boomers in particular are popping vitamins, minerals and other herbal concoctions in the hopes of warding off not only cancer, but heart disease, osteoporosis and other maladies as well. [Notice how irresponsible all of this sounds, due to phrases such as “popping vitamins” and “herbal concoctions.”]

"Cancer and aging go side by side," says Dr. Benjamin Paz, medical director of the City of Hope Breast Center in Duarte, Calif., noting that on average, one in two men and one in three women will develop a major cancer during their lives. [Here Weaver slips up big time. Though the statistics Paz cites are accurate in this country, his allegation that “cancer and aging go hand in hand” is heavy-handed and inaccurate. There are a number of long-lived populations in the world whose peoples have little to no incidence of cancer and greater longevity than citizens in the U.S. Researchers attribute their remarkable health and longevity to nutrient-rich diets and healthy lifestyles, combined with a lesser degree of environmental pollution.]

While we do have some power to avoid cancer, Paz believes, "it has to be a lifetime commitment." [Here, Paz is correct. But we all have far more power to avoid cancer than Weaver intimates in the first part of her sentence.]

In general, people can help lower their risk of developing some cancers by not smoking, maintaining a moderate weight, eating lots of fruits and vegetables and exercising regularly, doctors say. [Hardly a complete list, but accurate as far as it goes.]

But for many consumers, the "eating right" message isn't enough.

In addition to fueling the growth of dietary supplements, "prevention" is also the driving force behind the fast-growing $4.6 billion functional food industry, also known as nutraceuticals. Functional or super-fortified foods are the cereals, energy bars and beverages pumped with extra vitamins and minerals and promoted for their cancer- and other disease-fighting properties.

Evidence lacking [Here we have a typical tack used by such stories – readers who scan the article as it originally ran are apt to read this headline and conclude there is no reason to supplement to prevent cancer. Whether the headline was intentionally created for that purpose or simply sloppy writing on Weaver’s part, the outcome is the same – misinformation.]

However, scientific evidence proving that dietary supplements are effective in preventing cancer is far from conclusive. [Oh, really? For a contrasting view about this blatant factoid statement, I recommend the following books: Beating Cancer With Nutrition by Patrick Quillin, Ph.D., Cancer and Nutrition by Charles B. Simone, M.D., Herbal Medicine, Healing and Cancer By Donald Yance, Jr., and Natural Compounds in Cancer Therapy by John Boik. All of these books provided conclusive, documented evidence about the important role supplements can play in both preventing and helping to reverse cancer.]

In reviewing studies on the effects of vitamins A, C or E, multivitamins with folic acid or combinations of antioxidants, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, an independent [How independent? Who funded the study, and who conducted it? Did the latter have any ties to Big Pharma? These are all questions that should be asked whenever blanket statements like the one above are heralded. Read the books I recommend above and draw your own conclusions.] panel convened by the Public Health Service, concluded in 2003 that there was insufficient evidence to recommend vitamin supplements as a way to prevent cancer.

"Vitamins and minerals are probably more or less worthless as far as cancer prevention is concerned," says Dr. Daniel W. Nixon, president of the Institute for Cancer Prevention in New York. "The American public is not vitamin-deficient. Does adding vitamins to their diet do anything? Probably not." [Nixon is either woefully uninformed, a shill for Big Pharma, or both. In any case, his statements above are inaccurate.]

Part of the problem with trying to prevent cancer is that it's not just one disease but rather more than 100 distinct diseases, experts note. [While this is true, and a convenient excuse used by the cancer establishment to explain away their lack of progress, all forms of cancer fall into three primary categories, and for each category, the underlying causes are the same. Addressing these causes is the key to improving the likelihood of successful outcomes.]

"What's effective for one form of cancer may not be effective for others," says John Hatchock, a nutritionist with the Council for Responsible Nutrition, acknowledging that there have been "disappointments and successes" in the nutritional dietary supplement industry when it comes to fighting cancer. [This is true, and I don’t mean to imply that supplements are a magic bullet. They aren’t; but they can be a very valuable aid in preventing and reversing cancer, as well as many other diseases.]

"Supplements aren’t meant to be a substitute for traditional medicine; they provide extra insurance," says a spokeswoman for the industry council. "They’re not taking the place of drugs or eating right or exercising. They’re one more piece of what you should do as part of a healthy lifestyle."

While a controlled lab test may indicate that a substance offers some protection against tumors or damaged cells, researchers might not know what form of the substance — in foods or via pills — makes the ingredient most useful.

For example, the antioxidant lycopene, found in tomato-based foods, has been linked to a reduced risk of prostate cancer. But nutrition experts say it's not clear whether pills containing the nutrient would have the same effect as getting it from food. [Actually, indications are that food sources of lycopene are more effective. The reason for this is because isolating out a food’s primary active ingredient often fails to supply the same benefits that said ingredient has when taken synergistically with the other co-factor ingredients that the food contains. This is a fact that manufacturers of food-grade supplements and traditional herbalists have long recognized, whereas many nutritional companies, following Big Pharma’s lead, focus instead on merely synthesizing the active ingredient. In some cases, the benefits of this approach have merit. In other cases, the benefits are less than could be hoped for. But this is an aside and not something Weaver ought to be expected to have included in her story.]

Still, as the country's 76 million boomers become more anxious about their health, cancer prevention as a marketing strategy could get a boost.

From Cheerios to Diamond Walnuts, food products promoting "heart-healthy" goodness are already a big trend. Reducing cancer risks could be next.

Last September, the Food and Drug Administration loosened the rules about what health claims could be promoted on food labels. The new program allows certain foods to make "qualified" disease-fighting health claims.

As a result, the St. Louis company Solae petitioned the FDA to allow the soy food manufacturer to tout its supposed cancer-fighting abilities on packaging. The Solae Company, a joint venture between DuPont and Bunge Limited, refers to 58 studies showing a relationship between soy protein foods and reduced incidence of some cancers, including those of the breast, colon and prostate. [Interesting that it’s DuPont that is a party to this. That being the case, watch to see whether the research they present to the FDA is about soy products developed from genetically-modified soybeans, which comprise the vast majority of soybean products grown in the U.S.]

"The FDA labeling will definitely have a big effect," says David Lockwood, market researcher with consulting firm Mintel Reports. "Everyone will want to make a claim as fast as possible and it will definitely lead to consumer confusion." [Another blatant factoid based on faulty assumptions. If the FDA fulfills its obligations properly – admittedly unlikely, given its atrocious track record approving risk-fraught drugs! – why should this lead to consumer confusion?]

Indeed even if the FDA allows Solae to promote soy's cancer-fighting abilities, consumers may find themselves perplexed and angry if future research shows the food to be harmful. [I could make a comment here about the harmful drugs the FDA approves, but it wouldn’t be germane to what my commentary is focused on.]

The idea of soy and soy products as a cancer-fighter comes from international comparisons showing Asian women, who consume a lot of soy, have lower rates of breast cancer than women in the West.

However Dr. Graham Colditz, director of the Center for Cancer Prevention at the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston, says the benefits of soy are far from certain.

Because soy foods contain plant-like estrogens called phytoestrogens, some scientists worry that soy might cause recurrence in women who had already had breast cancer.

"There are studies looking at the impact of soy on breast cell proliferation that do not suggest protection against breast cancer," says Colditz. "That’s an example of everyone getting on the bandwagon that soy must be good, when slowly, but surely, studies come along that may question the overall benefit of it as a magic bullet." [Absolutely true. As I pointed out in a past issue of The Health Plus Letter, the health benefits of soy are indeed suspect, and the promise of soy has a health food was in fact first promoted by the commercial soybean industry – including Monsanto Corp. – which sought to create a new market for their crop, pointing to the low incidence of breast and prostate cancers among Asian populations who used soy as a staple of their diet. What was not pointed out in the push to create this new, human, market, is the fact that soy dishes in Asia are made from fermented soy, which inactivates the harmful risk soy’s phytoestrogens can otherwise pose. These phytoestrogens are still intact in soy products such as soy milk, raw tofu, and so forth.]

In any case, soy may find itself edged out by the next big trend on grocery store shelves and supplement aisles — omega-3 fatty acids, Lockwood predicts. Found in fatty fish such as salmon, omega-3s can reduce heart disease, research indicates. Because of their antioxidant properties, omega 3s are also associated with protection against cancer.

"Omega-3 ingredients are going to be put in everything," says Lockwood. "As long as manufacturers can make it so it doesn't taste or smell nasty and doesn't raise the cost [of the product] dramatically, people will go for it."

Green tea has already reaped the rewards of being linked to lower cancer risk. The grassy-tasting beverage has exploded in popularity as its antioxidant properties have been shown in human studies to protect the body from some cancers and heart disease.

Green tea contains catechins, a group of chemicals that have been found to inhibit early damage to DNA that is thought to be a precursor to cancer.

The lure of good health from gulping down pots of the world's most popular drink have helped drive sales from $2 billion a year in 1990 to over $5 billion in 2003, according to the Tea Council.

False sense of security? [Another poor headline choice.]

While studies may eventually prove that particular supplements offer some cancer-fighting benefits [Numerous studies have already proven this! See the books I cite above.], the largely unregulated industry remains controversial. A prescription or over-the-counter drug must be proven safe and effective before it can be sold. But that's not the case with vitamins, minerals or herbal remedies, so different brands of the supposedly same substance aren't always standardized and might not contain the same ingredients.

Doctors also express concern about the lack of large studies on human subjects using dietary supplements. These products simply may not work, or they could cause harm. [Here we come to the heart of Big Pharma’s propaganda campaign. Read the above paragraph again and note the factoids it contains. If Big Pharma’s drugs “must be proven safe and effective” before they can come to market, how is it that said drugs kill over 100,000 people in the U.S. each and every year when properly prescribed, and serious injure millions of others? This is regulation? Whether Weaver did so intentionally or not, she is parroting Big Pharma’s party line and in doing so most likely raised unfounded fears on the part of at least some of her readers considering the use of nutritional supplements. Exactly as Big Pharma intended.]

"The problem with mega-vitamin therapy is people take them way beyond what we know are safe volumes," says Dr. Tausef Ahmed, chief of oncology and hematology at Arlin Cancer Institute at Westchester Medical Center in New York. "They can cause certain undesired side effects." [This from an oncologist with, I’m guessing – based on the fact that conventional physicians receive next to no training in diet and nutrition during their entire eight years of medical school – no experience whatsoever in the use of orthomolecular medicine (“mega-vitamin therapy”). The problem Ahmed cites doesn’t exist, as decades of research into orthomolecular medicine has shown. At the very least, Weaver should have asked Ahmed to name the “certain side effects” he cautions about to determine his actual knowledge in this area. And then she should have included them in her article so that orthomolecular physicians could have had the chance rebut them if appropriate. And, given that she deems it appropriate to ask an oncologist questions about nutrition, would she, I wonder, be so willing to ask a nutritionist about oncology?]

The bigger question is whether supplements and super-foods give consumers false reassurance that they're doing the right things to prevent disease, says Colditz.

"The challenge is actually to identify, out of the enormous range of foods and supplements, those that may protect against cancer, and to identify those that do harm rather than protect," he says. "The bigger question is whether by taking a supplement we in essence have a false sense of security that we're doing the right thing so we don't need to worry about our weight or activity levels." [Since when does taking supplements mean not worrying about weight and not exercising? Colditz should know that these are not either/or issues.]

According to research, only 60 percent of women follow breast cancer screening guidelines, 30 percent of men and women follow colon cancer screening recommendations, and only 40 percent of men regularly get tested for prostate cancer. [This is what’s known as a non-sequitor, meaning it has absolutely nothing to do with the scope of Weaver’s article. Its purpose is to allow Paz to make his factoid statement below, while at the same time making it seem as if people who take nutritional supplements are irresponsible in other ways.]

"There's plenty to do before you take anything," says Paz. [Once again I point out that it’s not an either/or proposition.]

[To Weaver’s and MSNBC’s credit, the above article was accompanied with the following sidebars, neither of which I take issue with aside from the touting of soy.]

Foods

Blueberries: Their high antioxidant properties have moved the tiny fruit from muffin filler to health food favorite. Anthocyanin, the pigment which colors the berry, provides much of its benefits. Also a good source of vitamin C, which can protect against cell damage.

Broccoli, cabbage, Brussels sprouts: Rich in cancer-fighting sulforaphane and indole-3-carbinol, antioxidants which can protect the body against cell-damaging free-radicals.

Green tea: Antioxidants called catechins may reduce the size and number of cancer tumors, although large amounts of green tea are needed to be effective. The U.S. National Cancer Institute is funding a study looking at the effects of drinking 10 to 15 cups of decaffeinated green tea in reversing pre-cancerous lesions in the lungs of former smokers.

Flaxseed: A good source of omega-3 fatty acids, the nutty seeds are associated with lowering cholesterol and may reduce the risk of some cancers, researchers say.

Soy: Soy beans and other soy-containing foods contain isoflavones which can lower cholesterol and are believed to lower digestive cancers such as colon and rectal. It is believed that women who eat a lot of soy may be less prone to breast cancer because of reduced estrogen, although research is inconclusive. The FDA is considering whether to allow foods containing soy protein to claim a reduced risk of certain cancers on product labels.

Tomatoes: A rich source of the antioxidant lycopene, which is believed to protect against prostate cancer as well as heart disease. Cooked tomatoes are actually a better source than raw because the process releases the lycopene from cells.

Supplement Potential Benefit

C: Found in citrus fruits, broccoli and peppers, it can protect against cell damage and is important to the function of the immune system.

Calcium: May reduce the risk of colorectal polyps, precursors of colon cancer.

E: Found in almonds, wheat germ oil, peanuts and turnip greens, E is an antioxidant which neutralizes free-radicals, the toxic oxygen-based molecules that damage cells and can lead to cancer. The National Cancer Institute is conducting a large study combining vitamin E and selenium, a mineral found in walnuts, alongside a placebo test in men aged 55 or older, to see effects on prostate cancer incidence. Results are due in a few years. May also protect against bladder cancer, according to recent research.

D: Found in fortified foods like milk, the body makes vitamin D when sunlight or ultraviolet light hit the skin. Taken with calcium, it’s linked to a lower risk of colon and prostate cancers.

Folic acid: Folate has a preventive effect on colorectal cancer; may have a preventive effect on breast cancer in women who drink.

Lycopene: A powerful antioxidant found in tomatoes and tomato products such as tomato sauce and watermelon, lycopene may reduce the risk of prostate cancer.

Selenium: A trace mineral which may destroy diseased cells is believed to reduce prostate, colon and lung cancers. Found in Brazil nuts and walnuts. The National Cancer Institute is conducting a large study combining vitamin E and selenium alongside a placebo test in men aged 55 or older to see if the combination protects against prostate cancer.>>

The other news item that caught my interest was this press release from the FDA, issued on June 22, 2004. My comments follow below.

<< Lengthy Jail Sentence for Vendor of Laetrile—A Quack Medication to Treat Cancer Patients.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has announced the outcome of its investigative efforts by the Office of Criminal Investigations, conducted jointly with the United States Attorney's Office (USAO) for the Eastern District of New York and the New York Division of the United States Postal Inspection Service (USPIS), to bring to justice a businessman who had victimized cancer patients by heavily advertising and selling Laetrile, a highly toxic product that has not shown any effect on treating cancer.

Jason Vale, president of the New York-based Christian Brothers Contracting Corp., was sentenced on June 18, 2004 to 63 months in prison and 3 years of supervised release by a United States District Court in the Eastern District of New York.

"There is no scientific evidence that Laetrile offers anything but false hope to cancer patients, some of whom have used it instead of conventional treatment until it was too late for that treatment to be effective," said Dr. Lester M. Crawford, Acting FDA Commissioner. "This sentence sends a strong message that we will not tolerate marketing of bogus medicines." 

Following the investigation by FDA, the USAO, and the USPIS, the U.S. District Court for Eastern District of New York placed Vale's illegal sales and promotion of Laetrile -- also known as amygdalin, "Vitamin B-17", or apricot pits -- under injunction in April 2000. Defying the court order, Vale set up a shell corporation in Arizona, and continued to ship the product from the basement of his own home to customers passed on to him by his New York firm. For these activities, Vale was found guilty 11 months ago of three counts of criminal contempt, and ordered to be held without bail pending his sentencing. 

Last week, the court also found that Vale, who had made at least $500,000 from his illegal sales of Laetrile, had committed fraud in his marketing of Laetrile. In addition, Vale defrauded the U.S. government by claiming that he qualified for Legal Aid. As a result, Vale was ordered to reimburse the government $31,000 for the costs of his appointed defense attorney.>>

Comments: You’ve got to hand it to the FDA when it comes to hubris and hypocrisy. The above press release smacks of both. Let me say at the outset that I am not defending Vale’s attempts to market Laetrile to others. I don’t know enough about FTC regulations do comment on that. At the same time, his punishment is far more severe than that routinely meted out to pharmaceutical companies when they defraud the public, earning billions in the process, not $500,000, even when their drugs are found to be harmful. No one died as a result of purchasing apricot pits from Vale. To my knowledge, none of his customers even issued a complaint about him.

But let’s get to what the prosecution of Vale is really all about. Since at least the 1960’s, the cancer establishment has waged war against Laetrile and those who advocate its use. The FDA has followed the cancer establishment’s lead in this in lock-step fashion throughout its history. So it’s no surprise that the above press release leaves out the most important fact about Vale’s case. Namely that he successfully cured himself of cancer by taking Laetrile after doing his own research and discovering why many alternative cancer practitioners outside of the U.S. continue to use it in their clinics. Therefore, could it be that Vale engaged in his business and ignored the court order out of a desire to help others? I don’t know; I’ve never met the man. But it’s possible.

Even so, let’s assume the facts as stated (and not omitted) are accurate. Vale defied a court order and therefore is guilty as charged. OK, fine. I can live with that, the harshness of his sentence aside, because I believe in the rule of law. Ideally administered by judges who are guided by its spirit, not its letter.

That still doesn’t excuse the blatant and willful lies espoused in the FDA’s press release. Nor the purposefully misleading headline accompanying it. Laetrile is not a “quack medication,” nor is it “highly toxic,” nor has it “not shown any effect on treating cancer.” Vale’s own recovery from cancer after using Laetrile provies the falsity of each of those charges. More importantly, so does the research that occurred in the 1960’s, conducted by Sloan-Kettering’s senior scientist, Dr. Kanematsu Sugiura during the years 1972 – 1977.

Dr. Sugiura was highly respected among his fellow scientists and had over 60 years of laboratory experience at the time he conducted his experiences. In 1973, his research conducted on mice using Laetrile resulted in the following: Laetrile stopped the spread of cancer in the mice. It improved their overall health. It inhibited the growth of small tumors. It provided pain relief. And it acted as a preventive cancer agent. Sloan-Kettering’s own official report on this research, “A Summary of the Effect of Amygdalin [Laetrile] Upon Spontaneous Mammary Tumors in Mice,” issued on June 13, 1973, stated: “The results clearly show that Amygdalin significantly inhibits the appearance of lung metastasis . . . Dr. Sugiura has never observed complete regression of these tumors in all his cosmic experience with other therapeutic agents.” Read that last sentence over again, bearing mind that it is referring to an acclaimed scientist with over 60 years of professional experience.

But within months of this report on Dr. Sugiura’s, his superiors at Sloan-Kettering were disavowing the report and insisting that Dr. Sugiura be proven wrong. He was repeatedly ordered to conduct further tests on Laetrile, but the results were always the same. According to his research, Laetrile was effective. The only toxicity it posed was to cancer cells. Determined to put an end to Dr. Sugiura’s findings, SK officials finally ignored his data altogether, and in 1977 finally prevailed in creating the factoid that Laetrile is a toxic and ineffective cancer agent. Their reason for doing so? To destroy the competition Laetrile, a non-patentable substance backed by Dr. Sugiura’s lab results, would pose to their expensive, patented chemotherapy drugs. (To learn the whole sordid story, read World Without Cancer by G. Edward Griffin, and The Cancer Industry by Ralph Moss.)

To this day, no credible research has shown Laetrile to be toxic when properly administered as a cancer agent, nor is there any evidence suggesting that diets rich in Laetrile-containing foods, including apricot pits, are unhealthy. In fact, when monkeys and other primates in zoos are observed eating apricots, they initially ignore the fruit itself in order to crack open pit to consume the seed it contains inside. Apricot seeds containing the highest concentration of Laetrile of any food source found in nature.

All of which makes Acting FDA Commissioner Lester Crawford’s statement that “There is no scientific evidence that Laetrile offers anything but false hope to cancer patients,” a blatant falsehood, whether or not he is aware of Dr. Sugiura’s research, and similar findings by other researchers before and after. As for Crawford’s statement that Vale’s jail sentence “sends a strong message that we will not tolerate marketing of bogus medicines,” that would be laughable, considering how much bad science the FDA tolerates from Big Pharma, were said bad science not responsible for so many deaths and serious injuries each and every year.

Caveat: What I’ve written above is not to be construed as a recommendation by me that people take Laetrile to prevent or reverse cancer. I am not qualified to make such a recommendation, since I am not a physician. Moreover, as I’ve learned by visiting the clinics of doctors who are having a good rate of success treating cancer nonconventionally, there is no such thing as a “magic bullet” for cancer treatment. Cancer is a disease caused by a variety of factors, usually in conjunction with each other. To have the best chance of preventing and reversing it, you need to effectively address all of these factors.


Unabashed Plug

Amazon.com continues to offer my newest book, Health on the Edge: Visionary Views of Healing in the New Millennium at a healthy discount. To order it, visit http://www.amazon.com.  In it, you will learn:

How to quickly and easily restore relaxation throughout your body using hand warming, an easily mastered biofeedback technique you can do without any equipment.

How to increase your IQ by 20 points or more in less than a week’s time.

How to permanently eliminate long-standing fears, phobias, and traumas using energy psychology.

How to create a bioscalar energy wave within your body for rapid healing.

Take the next step in your healing, and order Health on the Edge today.


That’s all for this week. Till next time,

Health and Blessings!

Larry Trivieri, Jr. (larry@1healthyworld.com)


Disclaimer:The Health Plus Letter is a weekly eZine published by Larry Trivieri, Jr. and Library of Health, LLC (dba www.1healthyworld.com) 1514 Genesee Street, Suite 52, Utica, NY 13502. It is made available without charge for information purposes only and is not intended as a substitute for medical care. If you are experiencing a health problem, seek prompt medical attention.

The Health Plus Letter is fully compliant with the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003.

Legal Notice: The information in this eZine may be freely and widely disseminated so long as full attribution is made as follows: The Health Plus Letter, June 29, 2004, Vol. 2, No. 21. Copyright © 2004 by Larry Trivieri, Jr. All rights reserved.

To Subscribe Or Unsubscribe to The Health Plus Letter, please visit http://www.1healthyworld.com/lists