The Politics of Cancer (Part 3) – The Marriage of…

Video Transcript: The Politics of Cancer (Part 3) – The Marriage of Modern Medicine & Big Pharma

Editor’s Note: Be sure to catch Part 1 of this series here and Part 2 here.

Ty Bollinger: In this final installment of The Politics of Cancer, G. Edward Griffin brings this story back to our current medical model.

Charlene Bollinger: He also shares some thought-provoking statistics on the use of natural remedies as a first versus last response. Don’t miss his gripping conclusion!

G. Edward Griffin: So, what happened? Well, they did upgrade the technical quality of medical education in America, and for that, I think we were grateful. The next thing that happened is the staff and the curricula of these institutions became totally oriented towards drugs. And the third thing is that as a result of that, the students that go through these institutions come out the other end totally educated, if you want to say that word, in the operation of pharmaceutical drugs. They know drugs backwards and forwards, up and down, inside and out, but they know nothing about basic nutrition.

Many doctors that I’ve talked to have said “Yes, I think my wife knows more about nutrition than I do.” And they’re not kidding, because they don’t get any of that in these medical schools. Why? Because that’s not where the money is.

So, the final result of all of that is that these doctors come out of these institutions without even knowing that they have been converted into salesmen for the pharmaceutical industry. And so, when you go to your average doctor today, I don’t care what it is, if it’s a headache, a hangnail, or cancer, they’re going to write a prescription of some kind for you. Because that’s all they know how to do.

Now that’s the reality, and I think the doctors that are at this conference will confirm that totally. And even the ones that don’t like what I’m saying will have to confirm it because it is a fact. It’s a historically-documented, documentable fact.

And that’s how it happened. Now that’s the short course, of course. There’s a lot of detail, rich detail, a lot of drama, a lot of conflict going on behind the scenes, which I hope you’ll enjoy reading. It’s all documented in my book. But that’s the short course. That’s the outline.

So, how does this affect cancer? I think the best example is to tell you briefly a little story that happened between 1972 and 1977 at one of the most prestigious medical institutions in the world, the Sloan Kettering Institute.

Laetrile, in those years, was already being used by a lot of people, a lot of doctors using it, quite a few in the United States, as a matter of fact. And certainly, there were quite a few in Mexico, and in Germany, and other countries around the world. And patients were coming back from these treatments deliriously happy because they were told they had only a few months or a few weeks to live in some cases. Not all of them made it, by the way.

Let me just interrupt there for a second, because the statistics are very interesting on this. Now it’s true there have been no double-blind studies that I’m aware of, but there have been lots of clinics that have been treating their cancer patients for years, and they keep records, and they have their own statistics. And I’ve been allowed to examine those statistics.

And here’s what they’re almost always about, within a few percentage points are the same. The average person that goes to alternative cancer treatments, they go in as a last-ditch effort. They’ve already tried everything else, and it’s failed. They’ve had their surgery, had their chemotherapy, had their radiation. And if they’re still alive at the end of that, somebody says “Well, hey, have you tried alternative therapies? Have you tried laetrile or something else? Well, what have you got to lose?”

Well at this point, they have nothing to lose. So, that’s how most patients turn to these alternative therapies. Now in that group, the cure rate, the survival rate if you want to call it that, is not so high. It’s 15%. That means 85% don’t make it. So, why on earth would you want to turn to a therapy with such poor response?

It’s because if they didn’t, none of them would make it. When you consider the group, the class that that is, 15% is an amazing number. There’s no oncologist in the world using clinical treatments that are approved by the establishment that can come anywhere close to that kind of a statistic.

Now to round this out, there is a growing number of people, because of conferences like this and things they’ve read, I hear about them because they’ve read my book and they tell me about it afterwards, now these people are turning to alternative therapies as a first response instead of a last response.

Now what are those statistics? It just flips over. 85% return to normal health, and unfortunately, about 15% don’t make it.
So, that is what was going on in that period, 1972 to 1977. I’m going to make sure I—okay, I’ve got a few more minutes. And so, the establishment was getting very concerned about this growing group of people who were singing the praises of nontoxic therapies, unorthodox therapies. And they decided they had to do something about it, they had to discredit it.

Quote from G. Edward Griffin on Modern Medicine at TTAC LIVE 2017

Now I’m talking here about laetrile, because that was my—the focus of my study, but I think you’d find a similar story in almost any field that you want to turn to, any therapy that you want to turn to that is of the natural category.

Here’s what happened. They decided they had to have an institution test it, and then they would publish the test and solve the issue once and for all. Does laetrile work or not? So, they turned it over to Sloan Kettering, and it went to the laboratory there under the direction of their top scientist, Dr. Kanematsu Sugiura, a Japanese fellow who was highly regarded in the whole world actually. He was known because they knew that if he conducted a mouse experiment or a rabbit experiment on cancer treatments and so forth, you could count on it, it was accurate, it was repeatable. Well, I won’t go into all the evidence behind that. He was number one in his field. Dr. Sugiura was it.

Well, okay, let’s cut to the chase. Dr. Sugiura set up his mouse experiments, and here’s what he found. This is his report, his initial report. He had five conclusions.

  1. Laetrile improved the general health of the mice.
  2. It appeared to relieve pain.
  3. It inhibited the growth of tumors.
  4. It stopped the spread of tumors.
  5. And it acted as a cancer prevention.

And he concluded with these remarks, now this is Sugiura himself speaking about himself. He says,

Dr. Sugiura has never observed complete regression of these tumors in all his cosmic experience with other chemotherapeutic agents.”

Now that’s just the beginning. So, you think “Oh, victory. Problem is solved.” You do not understand the forces that are opposed to you, ladies and gentlemen. Like I did in the beginning, see? If you think that was the end of it, listen. To appreciate what happened next, we have to realize that the JD Rockefeller Sr. and his son Jr., began donating to Sloan Kettering in 1927. And in the 1930s, they donated the block of land on which Sloan Kettering now stands. Now that might imply they have some interest in this.

Okay, well back at that time, there were three of them on the board of directors of Sloan Kettering. It was James, Laurance, and William. And of course, their role there was to guarantee efficiency in philanthropy. Now Sugiura’s findings did not please the board of directors. And so, they were not interested in publishing the report. They were not interested in a substance that cannot be patented. You can’t make a profit on something that anybody can produce and compete with you.

And so, I’d like to just stop for a moment on that thought and share something tangentially with you. In 1974, Congressman John Kelsey used the Freedom of Information Act to obtain the board minutes on that date, the board of Sloan Kettering. And here is what he found.

Sloan Kettering is not enthusiastic about studying amygdalin, but would like to study cyanide-releasing drugs.”

Now if you understand what that means, then you understand everything that you need to know about the politics of cancer.
And it goes beyond that because it means that, you see, without official studies, without jumping through the hoop of FDA approval, which costs many, many millions of dollars now to prove—supposedly it proves efficiency, efficacy, and safety, which they don’t prove either one. But it costs many millions of dollars. And that keeps all the small players out. Only the big companies can afford that. It’s a sort of public relations fee, you know?

And it also means that anything that comes from nature, nobody’s going to spend that kind of money because they can’t afford it. If your competitor can produce the same product, if it’s an apricot seed, how can you spend $20 million proving that it’s safe and effective? How would you ever get your money back?

So, that means, ladies and gentlemen, that there will never be any studies done by the FDA that prove safety or efficacy of anything that comes from nature.

Ty Bollinger: That is more eye-opening information from G. Edward Griffin. We hope you learned a lot from his presentation.

Charlene Bollinger: If you did, please share this video on your social media and let your friends and family know about The Truth About Cancer. Thanks for joining us and God bless!

The post The Politics of Cancer (Part 3) – The Marriage of… appeared first on The Truth About Cancer.

About the author

Michael Smith

I have been an IT professional for over 20 years, along with web design and social media marketing. I am also very active in the alternative health community, promoting products to help achieve optimal health and reverse cancer growth.