The Unseen Hand - Ralph Epperson

Abortion and Laetrile

When a woman takes the life of her unborn child on the theory that she may do what she wishes with her own body, she receives the sanction of the Federal Supreme Court.

But if she purchases Laetrile in an attempt to save a life—either her child's or her own—she has participated in a criminal act.

On October 21, 1980, the Supreme Court turned away arguments brought before it that would have allowed a terminal cancer patient the right to use Laetrile as an aid to eliminating the cancer. In essence, the Court stated that the individual's body did not belong to the individual but to the state, and that the state had the right to tell the individual what he or she may do with his or her own body.

On Monday 22, 1973, the Supreme Court struck down all restrictive laws against abortion, in essence saying that the individual had the right to do with her own body whatever she wanted; the individual's body did not belong to the state.

So the question of whom the individual's body belongs to, the state or the individual, has not been officially determined by the Supreme Court

This hypocritical contradiction in the thinking of the Supreme Court is intentional, as can be illustrated by the examination of the circumstances behind these contradictory decisions.

The first industry to be examined in the search for the rationale of the Supreme Court's thinking is the food industry.

It is obvious from a reading of the list of ingredients on the label of a food product that more and more chemical substitutes or synthetic foods are appearing in the food consumed by the American people.

Perhaps the major reason for this shift from natural to synthetic or chemical foods is because of the cartel agreements signed between the giant chemical cartel, I.G. Farben, and the following American companies: Borden, Carnation, General Mills, M.W. Kellogg Co., Nestle's, and Pet Milk.

And I.G. Farben either owns outright or has had a substantial financial interest in, or has had other cartel agreements with the following: Owl Drug, Parke Davis & Co., Bayer Co., Whitehall Laboratories, Chef-Boy-Ar-Dee Foods, Bristol Myers, and Squibb and Sons.

The importance of these cartel agreements between I.G. Farben and some of America's largest food and drug suppliers becomes all the more evident when the claims of those supporting the use of Laetrile as a cancer cure or suppressant are studied.

Laetrile has an interesting history: "Dr Ernst T. Krebs Jr., a biochemist . . . had advanced the theory that cancer . . . is merely a deficiency disease aggravated by lack of an essential food compound abundantly in nature in over twelve hundred edible plants and [was] found virtually in every part of the world.

Laetrile is found in such nuts, berries and foods as: bitter almonds, buckwheat, apricot seeds, alfalfa, cherry seeds, peas, grasses, berries, maize, macadamia nuts, sorghum, lentils, millet, linseed, and apple seeds.

Some nutritionists have felt that the American public was not eating those grains, berries and foods high in Laetrile, and was therefore experiencing an increasing rate of cancer. They noticed that most of the grains consumed by the food consumer were hybridized and that Laetrile had been removed by genetic engineering. This meant that the grains high in Laetrile, such as millet and buckwheat, those that were the grain staples consumed by America's early pioneers, had either been eliminated or replaced by those hybridized grains containing little or no Laetrile.

In addition, some nutritionists have discovered entire societies where there is little or no cancer. One group, living in the remote recesses of the Himalaya Mountains between West Pakistan, India and China, known as the Hunzas, has never had a case of cancer in their society. These people consume the apricot and its Laetrile-bearing seed as the main staple of their diet.

(The eating of seeds for nutrition is a Biblical concept. Genesis 1:29 reads: "And God said: 'Behold I have given you every herb bearing seed upon the earth, and all trees that have in themselves seed of their own kind, to be your meat.'")

Other societies, also cancer free, consume large quantities of Laetrile-bearing grains and grasses as main staples of their diet.

Laetrile is a natural, non-toxic, water-soluble substance entirely normal to and compatible with human metabolism. The proper name for a food factor that contains these properties is a vitamin.

But every time the proponents of the use of Laetrile in cancer cases attempt to secure permission to conduct official tests in U.S. hospitals, they are turned down.

When famed chemist Linus Pauling, twice a Nobel Prize winner, tried to secure research funds from the National Cancer Institute for medical research on Vitamin C as a possible cancer cure, he was told that "The road to a vitamin answer to cancer is of no medical interest."

Other researchers, especially those testing for chemical solutions to cancer, are far more successful. For instance, the Sloan-Kettering Institute for Cancer Research, in New York, is financed in part by: ". . . the federal government and the Rockefeller Foundation."

But in 1981, according to the U.S. News and World Report, the government relented to pressure from those suggesting that Laetrile be tested as a possible cure to cancer, and agreed to a series of tests in four major medical centers. After running their tests, they concluded that it was not effective.

The results brought charges from the Laetrile proponents.

For instance, Robert Henderson, a spokesman for the pro-Laetrile Committee for Freedom of Choice in Cancer Therapy, charged that the tests were neither honest nor fair and were "probably designed to fail." Mr. Henderson said: " . . . the researchers did not continue the intravenous injections of amygdalin, another name for Laetrile, long enough, and they used an 'impure form' of the compound."

A few months later, in July, 1981, Robert Bradford and Michael Culbert of the Committee issued a joint statement charging the National Cancer Institute with: "gross fraud and deceit on the American public and of murder (negligent homicide) in the matter of cancer patients enrolled in the so-called 'Laetrile clinical trials' . . . ."

One author, G. Edward Griffin, in his book World Without Cancer, Part I, informed the reader why he felt that the medical establishment wanted the tests to fail:

"There are far more people making a living from cancer than are dying from it. If the riddle were to be solved by a simple vitamin, this gigantic commercial and political industry could be wiped out overnight."

But Laetrile has proven its effectiveness in country after country (as of 1973, there were 22 nations that had legalized its use in cancer therapy.) One nation, Mexico, after years of testing in Army hospitals, legalized its use, and in fact Dr. Ernesto Contreras at his Good Samaritan Cancer Clinic, in Tijuana, Mexico, has been effectively treating cancer with Laetrile for over 17 years.

But, in the U.S., those who want to take Laetrile as a treatment for their cancer can't, because the individual's body does not belong to the individual.

It does only if you wish to take the life of an unborn childl

The Supreme Court has so ruled!