David Rorvik

Forbis Report: No Fluoridation/Cancer Link   The Startling Effects of Light on Cancer With “Short Takes” on:   Tacky Laetrile Article at New Times, Recent Laetrile Victories, Second Opinion at Sloan-Kettering, Rauscher Farewell, Salk and Swine-Flu, The Lobotomies of a Mad Housewife, AMA Surprise, Cancer Cure Predicted (Again), The Corporate Connection, AND – don’t miss it! – How to Learn to Love Mammography and Stop Taking Gobs of Aspirin at the Same Time: Mammography, Mon Armour Linus Pauling Defends Himself Against NCI Attack   The brilliance and humanity of Linus Pauling have been attested to by two Nobel Prizes, a plethora of other prestigious awards and by his hundreds of publications, an amazing number of which endure as major guideposts on the frontiers of scientific and medical knowledge. Pauling is surely the pre-eminent scientific property of our time. Indeed, the distinguished British journal New Scientist, in a poll of its readers, named Pauling one of the top 20 scientists of all time, placing him in the company of Galileo, Newton and the like. Pauling has

“I think it was the ghost of Senator Joe McCarthy.” — Joseph Gold, M.D. With “Short Takes” On:   Spitball Fights Inside the FDA The Vitamin C Habit at High Government Levels Nicholas Von Hoffman’s Encouraging Words A Psychic Prediction of Israeli “Cancer Cure” Israeli Cancer Team Starting Laetrile Trials Calling Jimmy Carter Calling Fritz Mondale Hearing from Hubert Humphrey’s Press Secretary and Other Developments… After careful study of the literature and other available information, the American Cancer Society does not have evidence that Hydrazine Sulfate is of any objective benefit in the treatment of cancer in human beings. Thus begins an article in the March/April 1976 issue of CA — A Cancer Journal for Clinicians. CA is the official publication of the American Cancer Society. The article appears under the familiar heading, “Unproven Methods of Cancer Management,” an ongoing series of disreputable proportion in which anonymous “authorities” claim to have carefully studied various cancer treatments and found them wanting. Frequently the unnamed authors commit serious sins of omission and commission, display poorly concealed malice,

Part 3 “Praise the Lord, and Pass the Ammunition.” — Howell Forgy With Short Takes on:   Speaking Softly to Cows Earl (“Love Those Food Additives”) Butz Helene (“Goddamn Quackery”) Brown & Much More! This is the third installment of the Laetrile controversy. In the first installment (DMR-2) major Laetrile studies were examined and found to yield evidence of significant Laetrile efficacy in some animal tumor systems, despite denials to the contrary from Alexander Schmidt, commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, and Frank Rauscher Jr., director of the National Cancer Institute. The roots of the Laetrile controversy were explored and the various postulated actions of the substance discussed. In the second installment (DMR-4) I turned my attention to the embattled Laetrile personnae, focusing, in particular, on Andrew A. L. McNaughton, “godfather” of the Laetrile movement. “In the past 30 years,” wrote a Canadian reporter, “Andrew McNaughton’s life has spun a tangled and sometimes shadowy web of scandal-charged headlines and international intrigue which has seen his name linked to … multi-million dollar stock swindles …

Part 2 “By their fruits, ye shall know them.” – St. Matthew vii 20 With “Short Takes” on:   Betty Ford, Pat Brown, Sr. HHH Sloan-Kettering The Swine Flu Pat McGrady, Sr. This is part II of an analysis of the Laetrile controversy. In the first installment (DMR-2) major Laetrile studies were examined and found to yield significant evidence of efficacy in some animal tumor systems. These studies include those conducted by Southern Research Institute, under contract to the National Cancer institute, and Sloan-Kettering Institute for Cancer Research. This evidence was presented against statements of Frank Rauscher Jr., Director of NCI, and Alexander Schmidt, Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, categorically denying any Laetrile efficacy. The roots of the Laetrile controversy were explored and the various postulated actions of the substance discussed. “Whether Laetrile is an efficacious agent in the control of cancer must, in some ways,” I concluded in Part I, “be considered as of only secondary importance in an anfractuous controversy which perhaps, more than any other in the realm of cancer