Laetrile
Sir: Mr Stanton should stick to his able arguments in support of Sir Osward Mosley rather than venture into 'medical and scientific' matters of which he is palpably ignorant. On both his points (Letters, 1 October) the US authorities have clearly stated, after official inquiry, that there is no evidence that the drug laetrile is effective against cancer in humans or animals, and that there is no evidence that the Peking government has any responsibility whatever for the production and spread of opium and its derivatives in the Far East. Surely we should accept their statements on these matters?
So long ago as 1953 the California Cancer Commission demonstrated that laetrile was completely worthless, and there has been little subsequent need to make additional studies. Even unorthodox therapists like Dr Virginia Livingstone dismiss laetrile, and reject the `trophoblastic theory' of carcinoma aetiology on which it is based. 'I have seen tumours advance rapidly and fatally while patients are receiving daily intravenous laetrile,' she writes in Cancer: A New Breathrough. Laetrile can be just as poisonous as heroin, as it contains cyanide. Its use can discourage patients from tried and trusted methods of cancer therapy until too late.
The propaganda about the wonders of laetrile and the supposed 'Maoist' origins of opium narcotics comes from the same source: the notorious John Birch Society. The Chinese communists grow poppies for legitimate hospital uses, but prohibit dope addiction. Among many opium sources in the world, the principal oriental zone is the 'Golden Triangle' whose outlets run through Thailand, Malaysia, Hong Kong and Macao. No doubt Taiwan 'intelligence' has a financial involvement.
It is wickedly ironic that Birchites libel communists as traders in illegal drugs, while some of them have themselves simultaneously engaged in illegally importing laetrile and apricot pips into North America.
(Dr) Horace Templeton-Wade Gresham House, Wells, Norfolk
Previous page
