J. EDWARD GRIFFIN A WORLD WITHOUT CANCER - THE HISTORY OF VITAMIN B17 PRECAUTION The purpose of this book is to prove the fact that cancer is a consequence of nutritional deficiency. Cancer is not caused by the presence of bacteria, viruses or mysterious toxins, but by the lack of essential substances that modern man has removed from his diet. If this conclusion is correct, then treating and preventing cancer is simple. All that needs to be done is to restore our daily nutritional factor, which is inexpensive and easily available. This is a fascinating theory. It makes a promise to make the world free of cancer not in some distant future, but right now. This means that the billions of dollars spent annually on cancer research and treatment could be used for other purposes. Of course, this would also mean that millions of so-called “professionals” currently employed in cancer research, cancer therapy, and the entire charity industry would quickly lose their jobs. This is where our story begins to get interesting, since these are the very people to whom we appeal as experts and await their response regarding the value and legality of Laetrile and all nutritional therapy. It is not at all surprising that these experts rejected the concept of cancer as a vitamin deficiency. She doesn't give them anything. A world without cancer not only hurts their wallets, but also hurts their professional prestige. Imagine: a cure for cancer found in the seeds of simple fruits, not in research laboratories, and discovered by people without government grants and without prestigious diplomas hanging on their walls! Of course, state-organized medicine spoke up. Laetrile is quackery, she said, and derided the cancer treatment as "unproven." However, let us delve into this word. To most people, unproven means that there is no evidence. But what is the proof? This is not an absolute concept. In a strict sense, there is no such thing as evidence; there is only evidence. If the obvious convinces the observer, then it is evidence, and the thesis it supports can be considered “proven.” If another observer finds the same apparent evidence inconclusive, then it is not evidence and the thesis is “unproven” for that observer. In the pages that follow, there is a wealth of clear evidence supporting the concept of cancer as a nutritional deficiency, more than enough to convince most people that the thesis has been proven. But the word proven, when used by the FDA (US Food and Drug Administration), has exactly the opposite meaning. This is a purely technical definition. When the FDA says a therapy is proven, it only means that its backers have completed trial protocols demonstrating the safety and effectiveness of a particular treatment. It is important to know, however, that successful completion of those tests does not mean, as the terminology implies, that the therapy is safe and effective. It simply means that tests were performed, results were evaluated, and the FDA gave its approval for the marketing of this therapy, often despite the dismal results being readily apparent. If cancer patients undergoing these FDA-proven therapies read the actual laboratory reports, they would recoil in horror. These “approved” therapies are neither safe nor effective and, in fact, are not intended to be. Their goal is to establish a lethal dose—to reach the point at which the therapy kills just 50% of patients—and also to establish the relationship between those who will benefit and those who will not. This ratio is often in the range of eight or nine people per hundred. Additionally, “benefit” could mean any minor improvement, such as a temporary reduction in tumor size. It almost never means a complete cure. If there's one thing these studies have "proven," it's that most FDA-approved cancer therapies are both dangerous and ineffective. There is also the issue of money. The testing protocols established by the FDA are extremely expensive. Adherents of a new therapy must appoint a large staff and collect thousands and thousands of pages of statistics. Full messages often weigh hundreds of pounds and reach more than six feet in height. The process can take years and consume more than two hundred million dollars in research alone. Only big pharmaceutical companies can play that game. (Although they publicly complain about their costs, they privately approve of this kind of spending because it ensures that smaller companies cannot compete with them.) The potential of taking a new product and distributing it to a global market is worth the investment. But who would spend that kind of money to get a new product that couldn't be patented? Substances found in nature cannot be patented; only those invented by man. If a company has to spend two hundred million dollars to get FDA approval to use a natural substance, and its competitors can then sell the product, the developer will never get back his investment. Therefore - make a note of this - as long as existing laws are in force, the only substances that will ever be "approved" for cancer therapy will be proprietary substances. No natural substance will ever be legally available to treat cancer or any other disease until its source can be monopolized or its production patented. No matter how safe and effective it is, and no matter how many people it benefits, it will always be relegated to the category of “unproven” therapies. Thus, it will always be illegal to prescribe and distribute freely available naturally occurring drugs. And in many cases it is illegal to even use them. It's partly for these reasons that I put my warning and disclaimer on the front pages. But even despite these facts, I dare to say that only common sense should encourage cancer victims to choose their therapy with great caution. Keep in mind, therefore, that Laetrile is officially unproven in treating cancer.
The Internet is so oversaturated with videos about all kinds of cancer treatment methods that it seems that Rockefeller’s servants are deliberately confusing people for 30 pharmaceutical silver coins, hiding the truth from them and trying to divert attention from the most effective cancer cure that nature has provided us with - vitamin B17. Few videos are based on precise facts rather than vague explanations and this film comes at the head of iron logic and true facts.
To cure any disease, first of all it is necessary to obtain true knowledge about this disease, and not just anything, but first-hand. Only after this will it be possible to draw your own conclusion.
We invite you to watch Edward Griffin's film "A World Without Cancer and Vitamin B17." Let us recall that Dr. John Richardson proved the effectiveness of laetrile (vitamin B17). But when the drug was banned, the doctor turned to Edward Griffin, a journalist specializing in independent investigations, with a request to inform the public about the merits of laetrile. After conducting his own investigation, Griffin discovered that the results of the laetrile studies were fabricated by pharmacists. In addition, Edward Griffin received classified materials regarding these studies, which indicated the opposite - pharmacists saw the effectiveness of laetrile, but hid it. These documents formed the basis of Edward Griffin's book A World Without Cancer and this film.
Direct conversation about B17 (amygdala) begins at 20 minutes of viewing (19:42).
Additional video about laetrile (vitamin B17)
History of laetrile and facts about its first applications. Real stories and results of its use. Which two types of deficiency cause cancer? The machinations of pharmacists against vitamin B17 and their connection with Nazi Germany. Why are modern doctors specialists in pharmaceuticals, but have little understanding of medicine itself?
Another useful video. Sauna and cancer.
A very informative video about cancer, vitamin B17 and the historical machinations of official medicine.
This video is interesting because it examines, in general, various approaches to curing cancer, including with the help of laetrile (vitamin B17).
ORDERS ARE ACCEPTED AND SHIPPED 7 DAYS A WEEK.
TELL OTHERS ABOUT THIS! CLICK THE BUTTON BELOW!
Call now!
tel. +7 928 040-0886, +7 903 252-9446
- BASIC INFORMATION
RELATED VITAMINS
J. EDWARD GRIFFIN
A WORLD WITHOUT CANCER - THE HISTORY OF VITAMIN B17
WARNING
The purpose of this book is to prove the fact that cancer is a consequence
food vitamin deficiency. Cancer is not caused by the presence of bacteria, viruses or
mysterious toxins, but the absenceessential substances that modern
the person removed it from his diet. If this conclusion is correct, then treatment and
preventing cancer are simple. All we need to do is restore our
daily nutritional factor that is inexpensive and easily available. This is a fascinating theory. It makes a promise to make the world free of cancer not in some distant future, but
right now. This means that the billions of dollars spent annually on
cancer research and treatment could be used for other purposes. Of course it is
would also mean that millions of so-called “professionals” are currently
involved in cancer research, cancer therapy, and all charitable
industries would quickly lose their jobs. This is where our plot starts to get interesting. because these are the very people to whom we appeal as experts and wait for them
answer regarding the value and legality of Laetrile (Laetrile) and all food
therapy.
Not surprisingly, these experts rejected the concept of cancer as a vitamin
deficit. She doesn't give them anything. A world without cancer not only hurts their wallets, it also hurts
by their professional prestige. Imagine: a cure for cancer found in
seeds of simple fruits, not in research laboratories, and found
people not subsidized by government grants and without prestigious diplomas, hanging on the walls!
Of course, state-organized medicine spoke up. Laetrile is
quackery, she said, and derided the cancer treatment as "unproven." However, Let us delve into this word. For most people, unprovenmeans
that there is no proof. But what is the proof? It's not absolute
concept. In a strict sense, there is no such thing as evidence; there is only evidence. If the obvious convinces the observer, then it is evidence, and
the thesis it supports may be considered "proven". If
another observer finds the same obvious evidence inconclusive, then it is not
proof, and the thesis is "unproven" to that observer.
In the pages you will read next, there is much clear evidence supporting the concept of cancer as a nutritional deficiency, of which there are more than enough, to convince the majority of people that this thesis has been proven. But the word is provenWhen
it is used by the FDA (Food Control Administration)
US Medicines) has exactly the opposite meaning. This is purely technical
definition. When the FDA says a therapy is proven,it only means that she
patrons have completed test reports demonstrating safety and
the effectiveness of a particular treatment. It is important to know, however, that successful completion of those
tests does not mean, as the terminology implies, that the therapy is safe and effective. This simply means that tests were performed, the results were evaluated, and the FDA gave its
approval for the marketing of this therapy, often despite the obvious gloom
results.
If cancer patients undergoing these FDA-proventherapy, would read
actual laboratory reports, they would recoil in horror. In these “approved”
therapies are neither safe nor effective and, in fact, are not intended to
this. Their goal is to establish a lethal dose - to reach a point at which
therapy kills only 50% of patients - and also establish a relationship between those who
it will benefit and who will not. This ratio is often in the range of eight or
nine people per hundred. In addition, "benefit" can mean any
minor improvement, such as a temporary reduction in tumor size. She almost never
does not mean a complete cure. If there's one thing these studies have "proven" it's that
Most FDA-approved cancer therapies are also dangerous,and ineffective. There is also the issue of money. The testing protocols established by the FDA are extremely
expensive. Adherents of a new therapy must appoint a large staff and assemble
thousands and thousands of pages of statistics. Full messages often weigh hundreds of pounds and reach
over six feet tall. The process can take years and consume more than two hundred
million dollars for research alone.
Only big pharmaceutical companies can play that game. (Although they are publicly
complain about their expenses, they confidentially approve of precisely such expenses because
this ensures that smaller companies cannot compete with them.) Potential
the prospect of obtaining a new product and distributing it on the world market is worth
investments made. But who would spend that kind of money to get a new product, which cannot be patented? Substances found in nature cannot be
patented; only those invented by man. If a company must spend
two hundred million dollars to obtain FDA approval for the use of natural
substances, and its competitors will then also be able to sell this product, which means the developer will never get back his investment.
Therefore - mark this to yourself - while existing laws are in force, The only substances that will ever be "approved" for cancer therapy will be
patented substances. No natural substance will ever be legally available
for the treatment of cancer or any otherdisease until its source can be
monopolized or its production is patented. No matter how much it
safe and effective, and no matter how many people it benefits, it will always
It is illegal to prescribe and distribute freely available naturally occurring drugs. And in
in many cases it is illegal to even use them.
It is partly for these reasons that I put my warning on the front pages and
disclaimer. But even despite these facts, I dare to say that only common sense
should encourage cancer victims to choose their therapy with great caution. Keep in mind, therefore, that Laetrile is officially unproven in treating cancer.
pages are offered as food for thought only and not medical advice.
Their goal is to create a common basis based on comprehensive information. Although
there is a lot that each of us can do for ourselves in the area of prevention
cancer, clinical self-medication...