I’d like to introduce you to a man named Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski. Some of you know him, but I suspect many of you do not. They’ve tried to keep him and his medical research out of the public view for decades. In fact, after learning about him and watching the documentary I’m about to show you, I think this person sums it up perfectly: Watching the Dr. Burzynski documentary. I’ve never heard this story before. I didn’t think it was possible to hate our government more than I already do. — Ace Of Based (@_Midwest_Based) January 4, 2023 These people really are evil. Can’t cure cancer, that would take away all the profits! So here’s the short story…they’ve had the cure for 42 years: La folle histoire du Dr Burzynski et du traitement du cancer. (via netizentv)#Burzynski #Cancer #Healing #Science #Medecine #USA @YvesPDB @BugaultV pic.twitter.com/n3jOJ6SeSs — Didier (@LetItShine69) January 7, 2023 More here: In a 2021 interview, Dr Burzynski says that he believes that at some time in the future the intervention will be able to be delivered via a particular frequency instead of by injection (aka Nikola Tesla). Here are his notes from the end of that interview:https://t.co/ArlqV3PaKA pic.twitter.com/FUssv8WMxm — La Fleur Productions (@LaFleurDelSur) January 3, 2023 What happens when you cure cancer? Nobel Prizes? Awards? Fame? Notoriety? Nope. They go after you and try to destroy you. That’s the story of Dr. Burznski. https://twitter.com/PamelaNWPH/status/1610720759223324672 Here’s what AI says about Dr. Burzynski: Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski is a medical doctor and researcher who has been in the news for many years because of his use of a controversial cancer treatment called antineoplastons. Antineoplastons are a type of medicine made from chemicals that are found naturally in the human body. Dr. Burzynski believes that these substances can help to kill cancer cells and stop them from growing. Dr. Burzynski’s work has been the subject of much debate and controversy. Some people believe that antineoplastons show great promise as a cancer treatment and that Dr. Burzynski is a hero who is fighting to find new and better ways to treat this disease. Others, however, are highly skeptical of his methods and believe that there is not enough evidence to show that antineoplastons are safe or effective. One reason for this skepticism is that many of the studies that have been done on antineoplastons have been small and not well-controlled. This means that it is difficult to know for sure whether the treatment is really helping people or if any improvements seen are just due to chance. In addition, some people have raised concerns about the way that Dr. Burzynski has conducted his research and the methods he has used to test antineoplastons. Despite these concerns, some people with cancer have been willing to try antineoplastons as a last resort, even though they are not approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in the United States. This is because they are desperate for any treatment that might help them and because they believe that Dr. Burzynski is a brilliant researcher who is being unfairly targeted by the medical establishment. Dr. Burzynski has also been involved in legal battles over his treatment. In the late 1990s, he was charged with violating federal laws related to the prescribing of drugs. Some people believe that these charges were part of a larger effort to shut down his clinic and discredit his work. Others, however, feel that Dr. Burzynski was acting irresponsibly and putting people’s health at risk by giving them unproven and potentially dangerous treatments. In the end, it is difficult to know what to make of Dr. Burzynski and his antineoplaston treatment. On the one hand, it is possible that he is a pioneering researcher who has found a new and effective way to treat cancer. On the other hand, it is also possible that he is an irresponsible charlatan who is preying on the desperate hopes of people with cancer. The truth is likely to be somewhere in between, and it will probably take many more years of research and study to fully understand the risks and benefits of antineoplastons. I’ll tell you what…if I had a family member get cancer, I’m going DIRECTLY to his clinic. From his website: Established in 1977, the Burzynski Clinic has grown to be a nationally and internationally recognized cancer center that provides advanced and cutting-edge cancer treatments. OUR MISSION For over 40 years, Dr. Burzynski’s cancer research and patient care has been inspired by the philosophy of the physician Hippocrates: ‘First, do no harm’. Therefore, our approach to treatment is ‘personalized’ in an attempt to maximize effectiveness and minimize side effects for each cancer patient. In everything we do, we are proudly committed to these principles of cancer treatment and to continued cancer research. Our mission is to beat cancer. PERSONALIZED AND PRECISION MEDICINE Personalized and precision cancer therapy utilizes an understanding of each patient’s genetic make-up to unravel the biology of their cancer. Using this information, our physicians attempt to identify treatment strategies that may be more effective and cause fewer side effects than would be expected with standard treatments. By performing genomic tests and analyses, our physicians customize treatment to each patient’s needs. Personalized medicine may include the combination of targeted therapies and immunotherapies with conventional therapy. It may also involve the use of investigational agents (Antineoplastons), as approved by the law. Patients and/or their caretakers receive training for administering all therapies at home, as well as nutritional counseling. MULTILINGUAL ASSISTANCE Due to the international character of our clinic, we are able to assist our patients in various foreign languages. Watch the FULL documentary right here on Rumble: More here on YouTube, except it will probably get taken down: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmxUsAI29fw One more here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6TR512A4Jc RELATED REPORT: Has The “Cancer Cure” Been Known Since 1973? Have you heard of G. Edward Griffin? I know many of you will immediately recognize that name as the man who wrote the seminal book exposing the Federal Reserve called “The Creature from Jekyll Island”. Still to this day the most important book ever published about the Fed. And I’m kind of embarrassed to say that although I’ve talked about that book a lot, I never stopped to look into the man who wrote it, because logic stands to reason that he probably did some other incredible stuff, and it turns out he did! He also wrote a book called “World Without Cancer” which documents the stunning reality that some believe a cure for cancer does exist — and imagine this, it doesn’t come to us from Big Pharma, it comes to us from Big Poppa, God himself in the form of apricot and apple seeds. Yes, really. As incredible as his Jekyll Island book is, this might even be better: For legal and regulatory purposes, I can’t claim the cancer cure has been known since 1973 or even earlier. In fact, I’ll just give you my standard disclaimers here Disclaimer #1: Disclaimer #2: I am not advising you to stop any cancer treatments your doctor has you on.  I am not a doctor and I can’t give personalized medical advice.   But I am a reporter and an observer of life, and what I’ve noticed over the last 10 years is that “they” have been lying to us about almost everything! President Trump really exposed the Fake News starting in 2015 and like so many of you that really first opened my eyes. Suddenly, it became really easy to see they’d been lying to us for years, decades even! But “Fake News” is not limited to just politics…. As G. Edward Griffin’s Jekyll Island book clearly shows, they’ve been lying to us about finance too!  Going all the way back to 1913 and the creation of the Federal Reserve Bank, which is not Federal, has no Reserves, and is not even a Bank!  Then they got rid of tariffs, added Federal Income Tax and every year since then your financial life has gotten worse and worse while they get richer and richer. Heck, “Fake News” even extends into the world of cars if you can believe it! Like MotorTrend obviously having some strange grudge against Tesla where it just can’t figure out why the Tesla Model Y was the best selling car of 2023: MotorTrend is Insufferable. Its a dying publication. pic.twitter.com/2QHTfAmeln — Nic Cruz Patane (@niccruzpatane) September 3, 2025 Or saying that the (ugly) Ford Mustang Mach-E is a better car than the new Model Y: Motortrend just released a comparison between the new Model Y and Mustang Mach-E. They chose the Mustang Mach-E as their winner because: • They think the Mach-E is better value. (Mach-E AWD starts $3,640 cheaper than Model Y AWD)• They think the Mach-E has better, or equal… pic.twitter.com/QPxzpKy3ke — Nic Cruz Patane (@niccruzpatane) August 18, 2025 Folks, you can love or hate Elon, but objectively speaking the only people who hate Teslas are the people who have never driven one. The cars are so far ahead of ANYONE else out there it’s not even funny. From the raw power, to the beautifully minimalist interior designs, to Full Self Driving that has become scary good in the newest models, there is nothing else like them on the road today. But…MotorTrend just can’t figure it out why millions of people keep buying them. Anyway, my point is the Fake News exists not just in politics but in EVERYTHING! Why? The same reason anyone does anything, for the power and the money. It’s about the powerful, rich, entrenched status quo keeping its position as a cash cow. That’s it, plain and simple. Washington, D.C. hates Trump because he declared he was going to Drain The Swamp and end their corruption, and a whole lot of people panicked when they realized he was about to shut off the gravy train. Legacy auto is panicked now that they see Tesla is eating their lunch. Elizabeth Warren, Gary Gensler and legacy banking panicked and launched a War on Crypto when they saw Bitcoin (and especially XRP) were about to replace them. And…now connect the dots and do the analysis for the cancer industry. What is more profitable? Getting millions of people sick each year, keeping them sick, and making billions of dollars CUTTING, POISONING and BURNING the cancer out of them, all while they mostly keep getting sick and still die? If they could get healthy from something natural like eating Apricot seeds and a multi-billion dollar industry just shut down, that wouldn’t be good for everyone padding their pockets from that industry now would it? I’m just saying…use logic! See where the motivations are to keep power and money and everything else will suddenly make perfect sense! Now, why do I tell you all of that? Because I have a video I want to show you about G. Edward Griffin’s book that I think is going to blow your mind. Again, I’m not saying this is a cure, but I am saying that the evidence they lay out in this video blew my mind!  And I think it might blow your mind too. I actually came to learn about this book when I had Rick Hill on my show last week. In case you missed it, you have to see it: CANCER CURE KNOWN? Rick Hill Joins Me To Share How He Defeated STAGE 3 Terminal Cancer! [EXTREMELY CENSORED] And here are all the links you might need from that interview… Everything we discussed in the interview can be found here: https://rncstore.com/wlt They were nice enough to set me up with a promo code so use WLT at checkout and it will save you 10% off whatever you order. If you want a free copy of the G. Edward Griffin book go here: http://myworldwithoutcancer.com Get Rick’s Bundles here: https://rncstore.com/WLT-RicksBundles But now I want to show you this incredible video documentary laying it out step-by-step: FULL TRANSCRIPT HERE IF IT’S EASIER FOR YOU TO READ: This year, 350,000 Americans will die from cancer. One out of four of us will develop cancer in our lifetime. That’s over 50 million people in the United States alone. The purpose of this presentation is to show that this great human tragedy can be stopped now, entirely on the basis of existing scientific knowledge. We’ll explore the theory that cancer, like scurvy or pellagra, is a deficiency disease aggravated by the lack of an essential food compound in modern man’s diet, and that its ultimate control is to be found simply in restoring this substance to our daily intake. We are not in the business of promoting vitamins, food supplements, or products of any kind. We’re not prescribing any course of treatment. We endorse nothing except freedom of choice. We have nothing to sell but facts. What you are about to hear does not carry the approval of organized medicine. The Food and Drug Administration, the American Cancer Society, and the American Medical Association have labeled it fraud and quackery. The average physician, however, is less dogmatic. He’s more apt to say, “Let’s give it a try and then pass judgment.” Consequently, an increasing number of doctors all over the world now are testing and proving in their own clinics that the vitamin concept of cancer is true. With billions of dollars spent each year on research, with other billions taken in from the cancer-related sale of drugs, and with vote-hungry politicians promising ever-increasing government programs, we find that today there are 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. The result is that the science of cancer therapy isn’t nearly as complicated as the politics of cancer therapy. In the past, the FDA and other agencies of government have used every means at their disposal to prevent this story from being told. They’ve arrested citizens for holding public meetings to tell others of their convictions on this subject. They’ve confiscated films and books. They even now are prosecuting doctors who apply these theories in an effort to save the lives of their own patients. With this background in mind, it may appear to be the height of folly to proceed with this presentation, but ladies and gentlemen, if the story that follows is true, as we firmly are convinced it is, then in the name of humanity, someone simply has to stand up against the bureaucracy and we are determined to do it. The history of science is the history of struggle against entrenched error. Many of the world’s greatest discoveries initially were rejected by the scientific community, and those who pioneered those discoveries often were ridiculed and condemned as quacks and charlatans. Columbus was bitterly attacked for believing the Earth was round. Bruno was burned at the stake for claiming the Earth was not the center of the universe. Galileo was imprisoned for teaching that the Earth moved around the sun. Even the Wright brothers were ridiculed and condemned for claiming that a machine could fly above the Earth. In the field of medicine, Andreas Vesalius was denounced as an imposter and heretic because of his discoveries in the field of human anatomy. William Harvey was disgraced as a physician for believing that blood was pumped by the heart and actually moved around the body through arteries. And Ignaz Semmelweis was fired from his hospital post for requiring his maternity staff to wash their hands. Centuries ago, it wasn’t unusual for entire naval expeditions to be wiped out by scurvy. Between 1600 and 1800, the casualty list of the British Navy alone was over one million sailors. Medical experts of the time were baffled as they searched in vain for some kind of a strange bacterium, virus, or toxin that supposedly lurked in the dark holds of ships. And yet, for hundreds of years, the cure was already known and written in the record. In the winter of 1535, when the French explorer Jacques Cartier found his ships frozen in the ice off the St. Lawrence River, scurvy began to take its deadly toll. Out of a crew of 110, 25 already had died and most of the others were so ill they weren’t expected to recover. And then a friendly Indian showed them this simple remedy: tree bark and needles from the white pine, both rich in ascorbic acid, or vitamin C, were stirred into a drink which produced immediate improvement and swift recovery. Upon returning to Europe, Cartier reported this incident to the medical authorities, but they were amused by such witch-doctor cures of ignorant savages, and they did nothing to follow it up. Yes, the cure for scurvy was known, but because of scientific arrogance, it took over 200 years and cost hundreds of thousands of lives before the medical experts began to accept and apply this knowledge. Finally, in 1747, John Lind, a young surgeon’s mate in the British Navy, discovered that oranges and lemons produced relief from scurvy, and recommended that the Royal Navy include citrus fruits in the stores of all its ships, and yet it still took 48 more years before his recommendation was put into effect. The 20th century has proven to be no exception to this pattern. Only a generation ago, large portions of the American Southeast were decimated by the dread disease of pellagra, which was thought to be contagious and probably caused by an as-yet undiscovered virus. As far back as 1914, Dr. Joseph Goldberger had proven that this condition was related to diet, and later showed that it could be prevented simply by eating liver or yeast. But it wasn’t until the 1940s, almost 30 years later, that the medical world fully accepted pellagra as a vitamin B deficiency. By 1952, Dr. Ernst T. Krebs Jr., a biochemist in San Francisco, had advanced the theory that cancer, like scurvy or pellagra, is not caused by some kind of mysterious bacterium, virus, or toxin, but is merely a deficiency disease aggravated by the lack of an essential food compound in modern man’s diet. He identified this compound as part of the nitrilicide family, which occurs abundantly in nature in over 1,200 edible plants, and is found virtually in every part of the world. It’s particularly prevalent in the seeds of fruits, but also is contained in grasses, maize, sorghum, millet, cassava, linseed, bitter almonds, and many other foods that generally have been deleted from the menus of modern civilization. A chronic disease is one which usually doesn’t pass away of its own accord. A metabolic disease is one which arises within the body and isn’t transmittable to another person. Cancer, therefore, is defined as a chronic metabolic disease. Dr. Krebs has pointed out that in the entire history of medical science, there hasn’t been one chronic metabolic disease that was ever cured and prevented by drugs or mechanical manipulation of the body. In every case, the ultimate solution was found only in factors relating to adequate nutrition, and he thinks that this is an important clue as to where to concentrate our scientific curiosity in the search for a better understanding of cancer. But there are other clues as well. Before looking at the more technical aspects of Dr. Krebs’ theory, it’s well that we examine some of them. For example, domesticated pets often seek out certain grasses to eat, even though they’re adequately filled by other foods. This is particularly likely to happen if the animals are not well. It’s interesting to note that the grasses selected by instinct are Johnson grass, Tunis grass, sudangrass, and others that are especially rich in nitrilosides, or vitamin B17. Monkeys and other primates at the zoo, when given a fresh peach or apricot, will carefully pull away the sweet, fleshy part, crack open the hard pit, and devour the small seed that remains. Instinct compels them to do this, even though they’ve never seen that kind of fruit before. These seeds are one of the most concentrated sources of nitrilosides to be found anywhere in nature. Wild bears are great consumers of nitrilosides in their natural diet. Not only do they seek out berries that are rich in this substance, but when they kill small grazing animals for their own food, instinctively they pass over the muscle portions and consume first the viscera and rumen, which are filled with nitrilicide grasses. In captivity, animals seldom are allowed to eat all the foods of their instinctive choice. In the San Diego Zoo, for example, the routine diet for bears, although adequate in volume and nutritious in many other respects, is almost totally devoid of nitrilosides. In one grotto alone, over a six-year period, five bears died of cancer. It was generally speculated by the experts that a virus had been the cause. Now, it’s highly significant that one never finds cancer in the carcasses of wild animals killed in the hunt. These creatures contract the disease only when they are domesticated by man and forced to eat the foods that he provides, and the scraps from his table. Dr. George M. Briggs, professor of nutrition at the University of California, has said, “The typical American diet is a national disaster. If I fed it to pigs or cows without adding vitamins and other supplements, I could wipe out the livestock industry.” A brief look at the American diet tells the story. Grocery shelves now are lined with high-carbohydrate foods that have been processed, refined, synthesized, artificially flavored, and loaded with chemical preservatives. Some manufacturers even boast of how little real food there is in their product. Millet once was the nation’s staple grain. It is high in nitrilicide content, but now it’s been replaced by wheat, which has practically none at all. Sorghum cane has been replaced by sugarcane with the same result. Even our cattle are fed increasingly on quick-growing, low-nitrilicide grasses, so there’s less vitamin B17 residue in the meat we eat. In some places, livestock now are being fed a diet containing 15% paper to fatten them quicker for market. And so we see that in the past 50 years, the foods that once provided the American people with ample amounts of natural vitamin B17 gradually have been pushed aside or replaced altogether by foods almost devoid of this factor. Significantly, it’s during this same time span that the cancer rate has moved steadily upward to the point where today, one out of every four persons in the United States is destined to contract this disease. The ultimate scientific test of the vitamin theory of cancer would be to take a large number of people numbering in the thousands, and over a period of many years, expose them to a consistent diet of rich nitriloside foods, and then check the results. Fortunately, this already has been done. In the remote recesses of the Himalaya Mountains between West Pakistan, India, and China, there is a tiny kingdom called Hunza. These people are known the world over for their amazing longevity and good health. It’s not uncommon for Hunzakots to live beyond 100 years, and some even to 120 or more. Visiting medical teams from the outside world report that there never has been a case of cancer in Hunza. Although presently accepted science is unable to explain why these people should be free of cancer, it’s interesting to note that the average Hunza diet contains over 200 times more nitriloside than the average American diet. In fact, in that land where there is no such thing as money, a man’s wealth is measured by the number of apricot trees he owns, and the most prized of all foods is considered to be the apricot seed. It’s also interesting to learn that when the Hunzakots leave their secluded land and adopt the menus of other countries, they soon succumb to the same diseases and infirmities, including cancer, as the rest of mankind. The Eskimos are another people that have been observed by medical teams for many decades and found to be totally free of cancer. The traditional Eskimo diet is amazingly rich in nitrilosides that come from the residue in the meat of caribou and other grazing animals, and also from the salmon berry, which grows abundantly in the arctic areas. When the Eskimo abandons his traditional way of life and begins to rely on Westernized foods, he becomes even more cancer-prone than the average American. There are many other peoples in the world that could be cited with the same characteristics—the Abkhazians near the Black Sea, the Hopi and Navajo Indians of North America, certain native populations in South America and South Africa. From all races and all regions of the world, the one thing they have in common is that the degree to which these people are free from cancer is in direct proportion to the amount of nitrilosides, or vitamin B17, found in their native diet. In answer to this, the skeptic may argue that these primitive groups aren’t exposed to the same cancer-producing elements that modern man is, and perhaps that’s why they’re immune. Let them breathe the same smog-filled air, smoke the same cigarettes, swallow the same chemicals added to their food or drinking water, use the same soaps or deodorants, and then see how they fare. This, of course, is a valid point, but fortunately, even that question now has been resolved by experience. For over two decades, there has been a steadily growing group of people who have accepted the vitamin theory of cancer and who have altered their diets accordingly. They represent all walks of life, all ages, both sexes, and reside in almost every advanced nation in the world. It’s estimated that there are many thousands in the United States alone. Now, it’s true that there’s no way to determine their exact number or to conduct clinical examinations on each of them, but they do constitute a rather well-defined group that is both vocal and conspicuous. It’s significant, therefore, that after starting and maintaining a diet rich in vitamin B17, none of these people has ever been known to contract cancer. Now, let’s repeat that statement. While their fellow citizens are suffering from cancer at the rate of one out of every four, not one of these thousands has ever been known to contract this dread disease. For many persons, the logic of all these facts put together is so great that it would be easy to close the case right here. But in view of the powerful opposition against this concept, let’s not content ourselves only with the logic of the theory. Let’s reinforce our convictions with the science of the theory also, that we may understand why it works the way our logic tells us that it must. In 1902, John Beard, a professor of embryology at the University of Edinburgh in Scotland, reported that there were no discernible differences between highly malignant cancer cells and certain pre-embryonic cells that were quite normal in the early stages of pregnancy. In technical terms, these normal cells are called trophoblasts. Extensive research had led Professor Beard to the conclusion that cancer and trophoblast are, in fact, one and the same. His theory, therefore, is known as the trophoblastic thesis of cancer. The trophoblast in pregnancy indeed does exhibit all the classical characteristics of cancer. It spreads and multiplies rapidly as it eats its way into the uterus wall, preparing a place where the embryo can attach itself for maternal protection and nourishment. The trophoblast is formed as a result of a chain reaction, starting with another cell, identified as the diploid totipotent. For our purposes, let’s call this simply the total life cell, because it contains within it all the separate characteristics of the complete organism and has the total capacity to evolve into any organ or tissue, or for that matter, into the complete embryo itself. About 80% of these total life cells are located in the ovaries or testes, where they serve as a genetic reservoir for future offspring. The rest of them are distributed elsewhere in the body for a purpose not yet fully understood, but which may involve the regenerative or healing process of damaged tissue. The hormone estrogen is well known for its ability to affect changes in living tissue. Although it’s generally thought of as a female hormone, it’s found in both sexes and performs many vital functions. Wherever the body is damaged, either by physical trauma, chemical action, or illness, estrogen always appears in great quantities, possibly serving as a stimulator or catalyst for body repair. It’s now known that the total life cell is triggered into producing trophoblast when it comes into contact with estrogen. When this happens to those total life cells that have evolved from the fertilized egg, the result is a placenta and umbilical cord, a means of nourishing the embryo. But when it occurs non-sexually as part of the general healing process, the result is cancer. When cancer begins to form, the body reacts by attempting to seal it off and surrounding it with cells that are similar to those in the location where it occurs. A bump or lump is the usual result. Under microscopic examination, most of these tumors are found to resemble a mixture or hybrid of both trophoblast and surrounding cells, a fact which has led many researchers to the premature conclusion that there are many different types of cancer. But the degree to which various tumors appear to be different is the same degree to which they’re benign, which means that it’s the degree to which there are non-cancerous cells within it. The greater the malignancy, the more these tumors begin to resemble each other, and the more clearly they begin to take on the classic characteristics of pregnancy trophoblast. And the most malignant of all cancers, the chorionepitheliomas, are almost indistinguishable from trophoblast cells, for as Dr. Beard pointed out over 70 years ago, they’re one and the same. Let’s turn now to the question of defense mechanisms. Before we can hope to conquer cancer, first we must understand how nature conquers cancer, how nature protects the body and controls the growth of trophoblast cells. All animals contain billions of white blood cells. One of the functions of these cells is to attack and destroy anything that is foreign and harmful to our bodies. For this reason, it would seem logical that they would attack cancer cells also. But since cancer is trophoblast, and since trophoblast is not foreign to the body but is in fact a vital part of the life cycle, nature has provided it with a very effective means of avoiding the white cells. One of the characteristics of the trophoblast is that it’s surrounded by a thin protein coating that carries a negative electrostatic charge. The white cells also have a negative charge, and since similar polarities repel each other, the trophoblast is well protected. Part of the solution to this problem is found in the pancreas, which secretes an enzyme called trypsin. When this enzyme reaches the trophoblast in sufficient quantity, it digests the protective protein coat. The cancer then is exposed to the attack of the white cells, and it dies. Applying this to the embryo, we find that the trophoblast cells there continue to grow and spread right up to the eighth week, and then suddenly, with no apparent reason, they stop growing and are destroyed. Recent research has provided the explanation. It’s in the eighth week that the baby’s pancreas begins to function. Now it’s significant that the upper intestines, near the point where the pancreas empties into it, is the one place in the human body where cancer is almost never found. We note also that diabetics—those who suffer from a pancreas malfunction—are three times more likely to contract cancer than non-diabetics. These facts, which have puzzled medical investigators for years, at last can be explained in light of the trophoblastic thesis of cancer. But what happens if the pancreas is weak, or if the rate of cancer growth is so high that the enzyme trypsin can’t keep up with it? Then what? The answer is that nature has provided a backup mechanism, a second line of defense that can do the job even if the first line should fail. It involves a unique chemical compound that poisons the malignant cell while nourishing all the rest, and this is where the vitamin concept of cancer finally comes back into the picture. The chemical compound in question, of course, is vitamin B17, which is found in those natural foods containing nitrilosides. It’s known also as amygdalin, and as such, has been used and studied extensively for well over a hundred years. But in its concentrated and purified form developed by Dr. Krebs specifically for cancer therapy, it is known as laetrile. For the sake of clarity in this presentation, however, we shall favor the more simple name, vitamin B17. The B17 molecule contains two units of sugar, one of benzaldehyde, and one of cyanide, all tightly locked together within it. Now, as everyone knows, cyanide can be highly toxic and even fatal if taken in sufficient quantity. However, locked as it is in this natural state, it’s completely inert chemically and has absolutely no effect on living tissue. There is only one substance that can unlock this molecule and release the cyanide. That substance is an enzyme called beta-glucosidase, which we shall call the unlocking enzyme. When B17 comes in contact with this enzyme, not only is the cyanide released, but also the benzaldehyde, which is highly toxic by itself. In fact, these two working together are at least 100 times more poisonous than either of them separately. The unlocking enzyme is not found to any dangerous degree anywhere in the body, except at the cancer cell, where it always is present in great quantity. The result is that vitamin B17 is unlocked at the cancer cell. It becomes poisonous to the cancer cell, and only to the cancer cell. There’s another important enzyme called rhodanese, which we shall identify as the protecting enzyme. The reason is that it has the ability to neutralize cyanide by converting it instantly into by-products that actually are beneficial and essential for health. This enzyme is found in great quantities in every part of the body except the cancer cell, which consequently is not protected. Here then is a biochemical process that destroys cancer cells while at the same time nourishes and sustains non-cancer cells. It’s an intricate and perfect mechanism of nature that simply couldn’t have been accidental. There’s much speculation today about carcinogens, the things that supposedly cause cancer. We are told that researchers now have proven that smoking or excessive exposure to the sun, or chemical additives to our food, or even certain viruses, all can cause cancer. But as we have seen, the real cause is an enzyme and vitamin deficiency. These other things merely are the specific triggers that start the process. Anything that produces prolonged stress or damage to the body can trigger off the production of estrogen as a part of the healing process. If this goes unchecked because the body lacks the necessary chemical ingredients to fight back, then the result is cancer. Specific carcinogens, therefore, do not cause cancer. They merely determine where it’s going to occur. Of course, nature’s defenses against cancer include more than just the pancreatic enzymes and vitamin B17. Research has shown that an important role also may be played by other enzymes, other vitamins, oxygenation of the blood, pH levels, and even body temperature. Vitamin B17 seems to be the most vital and direct-acting of all these factors, but none of them can be ignored, for they’re an interlocking part of the total natural mechanism. Fortunately, it’s not necessary for man to understand fully every theoretical aspect of this mechanism in order to make it work for him in practice. All that he really needs to know is the necessity of eating foods rich in all the vitamins and minerals and of minimizing damage or stress to the body. The reality of the vitamin B17 concept of cancer has been proven in the laboratory beyond any doubt. For example, Dr. Dean Burk, head of the Cytochemistry Section of the National Cancer Institute, has reported that in a series of tests on animal tissue, the B17 had no effect on normal cells, but released so much cyanide and benzaldehyde when it came in contact with cancer cells that not one of them could survive. He said, “When we add laetrile to a cancer culture under the microscope, we can see the cancer cells dying off like flies.” We’ve said that vitamin B17 is harmless to non-cancer cells. This is true, but perhaps it would be more accurate to say that it’s as harmless as any substance can be. After all, even life-essential water or oxygen can be fatal if taken in unnaturally large doses. And this is true also of vitamin B17. For example, there is one case of a man who reportedly died from devouring almost a cup of apple seeds. Incidentally, the case never has been authenticated, but assuming it’s true, if the man had eaten the apples also, he would have obtained enough extra rhodanese from the whole fruit to offset the effect of even that many seeds in his stomach. But that would’ve required that he eat several cases of apples, which, of course, would’ve been impossible in the first place. Nature can do only so much. It cannot anticipate excess of this kind. Therefore, it’s wise to follow the simple rule that one should not eat at one time more seeds than he likely would consume if he also were eating a reasonable quantity of the whole fruit. This is a common-sense rule with a large safety margin that can be followed with complete confidence. Now, when it comes to the laboratory forms of vitamin B17, known as amygdalin or laetrile, there’s even less cause for concern. For over 100 years, standard pharmacology reference books have described this substance as non-toxic. After a century of use in all parts of the world, there never has been a single reported case of related death or even serious illness. In one series of tests, white rats were fed 70 times the normal human dose of laetrile, and the only side effects produced were greater appetite, weight gain, and superior health—just what one would expect from taking a vitamin. Aspirin tablets are 20 times more toxic than the equivalent amount of laetrile. And in fact, Dr. Burk of the National Cancer Institute has demonstrated that laetrile is even less toxic than sugar. Let’s turn now to the all-important question: Does laetrile or vitamin B17 actually control cancer in human beings? And if it does, is there statistical evidence to support that claim? Spokesmen for organized medicine say no. Almost all official opposition to laetrile is based upon a 1953 report by the Cancer Commission of the California Medical Association. The report said flatly, “No satisfactory evidence has been produced to indicate any significant cytotoxic effect of laetrile on the cancer cell.” Using this report as a primary reference, government agencies soon declared that it was illegal to prescribe, transport, or even recommend laetrile. The report was written by the committee chairman, Dr. Ian MacDonald, and the committee secretary, Dr. Henry Garland. There were seven other prominent physicians appointed to the committee, but none of them—not even the men who wrote the report—had any personal experience with laetrile. They had based their conclusions entirely on the written records of other experimenters. The scientific judgment of these men perhaps can be best appreciated by noting that MacDonald and Garland were the doctors who had made headlines claiming that there was no connection between cigarette smoking and lung cancer. In fact, MacDonald had claimed that 24 cigarettes per day was a harmless pastime, and then he said, “A pack a day keeps lung cancer away.” But even more important than this scientific ineptitude is the fact that both men actually had falsified their summary of the laetrile experiments. For example, their report claimed that microscopic examinations of tumors taken from patients treated with laetrile showed no evidence of beneficial chemical effect, yet ten years later it was learned that one of the pathologists conducting the examinations, in fact, did report several instances of tumor destruction, which he stated at the time could well have been caused by the action of laetrile. MacDonald and Garland had not told the truth. The report also stated that laboratory technicians had tried unsuccessfully to release cyanide from laetrile. This was offered as powerful evidence that the entire theory was a fraud, and yet just two months prior to that, the American Medical Association Chemical Lab had reported that it had been successful in releasing cyanide from laetrile. And of course, other labs have done this also, including the California Food and Drug Lab, and, of course, the Cytochemistry Lab of the National Cancer Institute. Again, MacDonald and Garland had obscured the truth. Another important aspect of this report is that the patients had received extremely small doses of laetrile, much too small to prove anything. Today, it’s not uncommon to administer two or three grams of the material in a single injection. Generally, 30 or 40 grams are required before the patient can report tangible signs of improvement, but in the California experiment, the maximum total dosage was only about two grams, and even that was divided among 12 injections. Five patients had received only two injections, and five had received only one. So it’s not surprising that these experiments had failed to obtain convincing evidence that laetrile worked. What is surprising, however, is that this and similar discredited reports continue to be cited by the American Cancer Society as proof that laetrile is a hoax. But let’s return to the original side of this question: What evidence is there to support the claim that laetrile does work? As we have seen, the health records of the Unangax, the Eskimos, and many other groups around the world are statistically conclusive that vitamin B17 does control cancer in human beings with an effectiveness approaching 100%. There can be little controversy over that. But what about cancer once it already has started? Can B17 restore a person to health after he has contracted the disease? The answer is yes, if it’s caught in time and if the patient isn’t too badly damaged by prior X-ray treatment or toxic drugs. Unfortunately, most cancer victims start taking laetrile only after their disease is so far advanced that they’ve been given up as hopeless by routine medical channels. Usually, they’ve been told that they have only a few more months or weeks to live, and it’s in this tragic state of near death that they turn to vitamin therapy as a last resort. If they die—and indeed many of them do—then they are counted as statistical failures for laetrile. In reality, it’s a victory for laetrile that any of them should be saved at this stage, for once a deficiency disease has progressed so far, the damage it does simply can’t be reversed. A man who has been shot with a gun can have the bullet removed but still die from the wound. Likewise, a patient can have his cancer destroyed by vitamin B17 and still die from the irreversible damage already done to his vital organs. And so, in view of this tremendous handicap, the number of terminal patients who have been restored to health is most impressive. In fact, there literally are thousands of such case histories in the medical record. The American Cancer Society has tried to create the impression that the only ones who claim to have been saved by laetrile are those who merely were hypochondriacs and who never really had cancer in the first place, but the record reveals quite a different story. Let’s take a look at just a few examples. Mr. David Edmonds of Pinole, California, was operated on in June of 1971 for cancer of the colon, which also had metastasized, or spread, to the bladder. When the surgeon opened him up, he found that the malignant tissue was so widespread it was almost impossible to remove it all. The blockage of the intestines was relieved by severing the colon and bringing the open end to the outside of his abdomen, a procedure known as a colostomy. Five months later, the cancer had returned, and Mr. Edmonds was told that he had only a few more months to live. Mrs. Edmonds, who was a nurse, had heard about laetrile and decided to give it a try. Six months later, instead of lying on his deathbed, Mr. Edmonds surprised the doctors by feeling well enough to resume an almost normal routine. An exploratory cystoscopy of the bladder revealed that the cancer there had completely disappeared. At his own insistence, he was readmitted to the hospital to see if his colon could be put back together again. In surgery, they found nothing even resembling cancer tissue, so they reconnected the colon and sent him home to recuperate. It was the first time in the history of the hospital that a reverse colostomy had been performed. Mr. Edmonds now is living a near-normal life of health and vigor. In 1967, Mrs. Joan Wilkinson had a tumor removed from her lower left leg, just below the thigh. Four months later, there was a recurrence requiring additional surgery and the removal of muscle and bone. A year later, a lump in the groin appeared, and a biopsy revealed that her cancer had returned and was spreading. Her doctor told her that surgery would be necessary again, but this time they would have to amputate the leg, the hip, and probably the bladder and one of the kidneys as well. The plan was to open up her lungs first to see if cancer had located there. If it had, then they would not amputate because there wouldn’t be any chance of saving her anyway. At the urging of her sister and a mutual friend, Mrs. Wilkinson decided not to undergo surgery, but to try laetrile instead. Her doctor was upset by this, and he told her that if she didn’t have the surgery, she couldn’t possibly live longer than 12 weeks. Five weeks after starting on laetrile, the lump in her groin had disappeared. Today, years later, she’s living a healthy and productive life. In 1972, Dr. Dale Danner, a podiatrist from Santa Paula, California, developed a pain in the right leg and a severe cough. X-rays revealed a carcinoma of both lungs and what appeared to be massive secondary tumors in the leg. The cancer was inoperable and resistant to radiotherapy. The prognosis was incurable and fatal. At the insistence of his mother, Dr. Danner agreed to try laetrile, although he had no faith in its effectiveness. Primarily just to please her, he obtained a large supply in Mexico, but he was convinced from what he had read in the medical journals that it was nothing but quackery and a fraud. Perhaps it was even dangerous, he thought, for he noticed from the literature that it contained large amounts of cyanide. Within a few weeks, the pain and the coughing had progressed to the point where no amount of medication could hold it back. Forced to crawl on his hands and knees and unable to sleep for three days and nights, he became despondent and desperate. Groggy from the lack of sleep, from the drugs, and from the pain, finally he turned to his supply of laetrile. Giving himself one more massive dose of medication—hopefully to bring on sleep—he then proceeded to administer the laetrile directly into an artery. Before losing consciousness from the medication, Dr. Danner had succeeded in taking at least an entire ten-day supply, and possibly as high as a twenty-day supply, all at once. When he awoke 36 hours later, much to his amazement, not only was he alive, but also the cough and pain were greatly reduced. His appetite had returned, and he was feeling better than he had in months. Reluctantly, he had to admit that laetrile was working, so he obtained an additional supply and began routine treatment with smaller doses. Three months later, he was back to work. Since laetrile was developed in 1952, there have been literally thousands of similar case histories reported and documented. And when all these are viewed as a group, they begin to take on the form of numerical statistics, which, of course, are more meaningful than individual cases. There have been at least 26 published medical papers written by well-known physicians who have used laetrile experimentally in the treatment of their own patients, and who have concluded that laetrile is both safe and effective in the treatment of cancer. The American Cancer Society and other spokesmen for the medical establishment would have us believe that only crackpots have endorsed this conclusion, but the doctors who conducted these experiments, and those who share their conclusions, are not quacks. Here are just a few of the names. In West Germany, there is Dr. Hans Nieper, Director of the Department of Medicine at the Silbersee Hospital in Hanover. He is a pioneer in the medical use of cobalt, and is credited with developing the anti-cancer drug cyclophosphamide. Undoubtedly, he is one of the world’s most famous and respected cancer specialists. In Canada, there is Dr. N. R. Boussion, Director of Research Laboratories at Sainte-Jeanne-d’Arc Hospital in Montreal. He is a member of the hospital’s tumor board in charge of chemotherapy. Also, he is dean of the American Association of Bioanalysts. In the Philippines, there is Dr. Manuel Navero, Professor of Medicine and Surgery at the University of Santo Tomas in Manila. He is distinguished internationally as a cancer researcher, and has over 100 major scientific papers to his credit, some of which have been read before the International Cancer Congress. In Mexico, there is Dr. Ernesto Contreras, who, for over a decade, has operated the famous Good Samaritan Cancer Clinic in Tijuana. He is one of Mexico’s most distinguished medical figures. He received postgraduate training at Harvard’s Children’s Hospital in Boston. He has served as professor of histology and pathology at the Mexican Army Medical School, and as the chief pathologist at the Army Hospital in Mexico City. In Belgium, there is Dr. Mayzin of the University of Louvain. In Italy, there is Dr. Gidetti of the University of Turin. In Japan, there is Dr. Sakai, a prominent physician in Tokyo. And in the United States, there are such respected names as Dr. Burk of the National Cancer Institute, Dr. Marone of the Jersey City Medical Center, Dr. Krebs, who developed laetrile, Dr. Richardson of San Francisco, and many more from over 20 countries with equally impeccable credentials. These researchers have reported that most of their patients experience several important side effects, including an immediate lowering of blood pressure, improved appetite, an increase in the hemoglobin and red-blood-cell count, and above all, a release from pain without narcotics. Even if the patient has started laetrile therapy too late to be saved, this last effect is a merciful blessing in itself. In the United States, if a doctor wishes to avoid being labeled a quack, he must practice what is called consensus medicine. In other words, he must use only those treatments that generally are also used by his colleagues. At the present time, in the field of cancer, those are limited to surgery, X-ray, and drugs. For comparison, therefore, let’s turn now to the results and benefits attained through these so-called orthodox treatments. As we shall see, surgery is the least harmful of the three, and in some cases, it can be a life-saving stop-gap measure. Surgery also has the psychological advantage of visibly removing the tumor, and from that point of view, it offers the patient and his family some comfort and hope. However, the degree to which surgery is useful is the same degree to which the tumor is not malignant. The greater the proportion of cancer cells in that tumor, the less likely it is that surgery will help. And the most highly malignant tumors of all generally are considered inoperable. The statistical rate of long-term survival after surgery is, at best, only 10 or 15%. And once the cancer has metastasized to a secondary location, surgery has almost no survival value whatsoever. The reason, of course, is that like the other therapies approved by organized medicine, surgery removes only the tumor. It does not remove the cause. The rationale behind X-ray therapy is essentially the same as with surgery. The medical objective is to remove the tumor, but to do so by burning it away rather than cutting it out. Here, also, it’s primarily the non-cancer cell that’s destroyed. The more malignant the tumor, the more resistant it is to radiotherapy. In fact, this procedure has all the same limitations and drawbacks of surgery, plus one more. It actually increases the likelihood that cancer will develop in other parts of the body. Yes, it’s a well-established fact that excessive exposure to radioactivity is an effective way to induce cancer. This has been demonstrated not only among the survivors of Hiroshima, but a research team at the University of Buffalo recently reported that less than a dozen routine medical X-rays to the same part of the body increases the risk of leukemia by at least 60%, and these routine X-rays are nothing compared to the intense radiation used on cancer patients. X-rays induce cancer because of at least two factors. First, they do physical damage to the body, which triggers off the production of trophoblast cells as part of the healing process. Second, they weaken or destroy the production of white blood cells which, as we have seen, constitute the immunological defense mechanism—the body’s front-line defense against cancer. As with all forms of currently popular treatments, once the cancer has metastasized to a second location, there is practically no chance that the radiology patient will live. So in addition to an almost zero survival value, radiotherapy has the extra distinction of also spreading the very cancer it’s supposed to combat. The record of so-called anti-cancer drugs is even worse. Most of them currently in use are highly poisonous—not just to cancer, but to the rest of the body as well. In fact, generally, they are more deadly to healthy tissue than they are to the malignant cell. Most of these drugs are described as radiomimetic, which means mimic or produce the same effects as radiation. Consequently, they also suppress the immunological defense mechanism, and thus help to spread the cancer to other areas. But whereas X-rays usually are directed to only one or two locations, these chemicals do their deadly work on every cell in the entire body. The use of exotic and highly toxic drugs is the latest fad in cancer therapy. As scores of these drugs are developed each year, cancer patients become the human guinea pigs upon which they’re tested. The tragic results are well depicted in the following statements taken from just a few of the official chemotherapy reports of the National Cancer Institute: “An effort was made to choose patients who were well enough to withstand the anticipated toxicity. Early death of two of the first five patients treated caused a reduction to 8 milligrams per kilogram per day. No significant anti-tumor benefit of any duration was observed.” “In this study, six of the eight children died. No therapeutic effect was observed. Toxic clinical manifestations consisted of vomiting, hypertension, changes in oral mucous membranes, and diarrhea. Renal damage and cerebral edema were observed at post-mortem examination in each of the six patients who died while receiving this drug.” “The death of two patients was unequivocally caused by drug toxicity. Eight of the 14 patients who survived their initial courses of therapy showed rapid and general deterioration, and died within 10 weeks after therapy began.” And so it goes, year in and year out—deadly experiments fully approved by organized medicine, experiments that can be viewed only as a form of human vivisection. This then is the comparison between vitamin therapy and orthodox treatments. The statistics that follow are taken from the National Cancer Institute, the American Cancer Society, and from the clinical records of those physicians who have used laetrile in the treatment of their own patients. They vary widely depending on the age of the patient, the sex, the cancer location, and the degree of malignancy. Consequently, the figures shown will be averages for all kinds and all groups together. This is the story they tell: Of those with advanced metastasized cancer who have been told by their physician that there is no hope, only 15% will be saved when they turn to vitamin therapy—which is not good. But under orthodox treatment, less than one out of 1,000, or one-tenth of 1%, will survive five years. Of those with early-diagnosed cancer, at least 80% will be saved by vitamin therapy, but no more than 15% will survive under orthodox treatment. And of those who presently are healthy, with no clinical cancer to begin with, close to 100% can expect to be free from cancer as long as they routinely obtain adequate amounts of vitamin B17. But those who subsist on the typical American diet and rely only on the therapies of organized medicine are doomed to a survival rate of just 84%, and that figure includes all ages. It is much less for those above 30. As mentioned previously, these figures will vary widely depending on age, sex, cancer location, and degree of malignancy. Also, they’re somewhat arbitrary when it comes to separating early-diagnosed cancers from those that are advanced, for often there’s a gray area between the two. Nevertheless, in general, they are as accurate as any such tabulation can be, and they tell an impressive story that cannot be brushed aside. Considering the lack of results obtained by orthodox medicine, it’s been said that voodoo witchcraft would be just as effective, and perhaps even more so, for at least then the patient would be spared the deadly side effects of radiation and chemical poisoning. Just as we are amused today at the primitive medical practices of history, future generations surely will look back at our own era and cringe at the senseless cutting, burning, and poisoning that now passes for medical science. No matter how useless or even harmful current practices may be, consensus medicine demands that they be used by every physician. Regardless of how many patients are lost, the doctor’s professional standing is upheld, because those who pass judgment through peer review are using the same treatments and getting the same tragic results. On the other hand, if a doctor deviates from this pattern and dares to apply nutrition as the basis of his treatment—even if he attains a high degree of success—he is condemned as a quack. He may lose his hospital privileges and even is subject to arrest. There’s no doubt that most of the opposition to vitamin therapy comes from well-intentioned people who simply don’t yet have all the facts, but vested interest also plays an important role. As stated at the beginning of this presentation, the science of cancer therapy isn’t nearly as complicated as the politics of cancer therapy. Once vitamin B17 is as widely understood and available as other vitamins, cancer then will be as rare as is scurvy or pellagra today. When nitrilosides are used, perhaps as a routine seasoning to our food like iodized table salt, then the battle finally will be won. This is our goal, and it’s an objective that can be reached right now by anyone who will act upon this knowledge. You and your family now may become secure from cancer. But that’s only because someone else has helped to bring these facts to your attention. Can you do less for others? Join with us in this noble task. Together we can create a world without cancer. Backup video here if needed: World Without Cancer — G. Edward Griffin MORE INFO https://t.co/i4eYnGcgud pic.twitter.com/ciqqFCWHzA — Noah Christopher (@DailyNoahNews) September 8, 2025 And in case you missed my original interview with Rick Hill, I’ve got that for you here: CANCER CURE KNOWN? Rick Hill Joins Me To Share How He Defeated STAGE 3 Terminal Cancer! [EXTREMELY CENSORED] I just got done with what might be the most important interview I’ve ever done. Why? Because a healthy person wants a million things in life, but a sick person only wants one.  To get better. So if you have cancer or know someone who has cancer, you’re going to want to watch this immediately! Bookmark it too. And I suppose before I get into it I’d better print my standard FDA disclaimer and get this out of the way: Ok, we good? All good with the suits? Ok, now let’s dig in. I am so glad I got to meet Rick Hill today and hear his story. I have no idea how I never heard this before, but 50 years ago Rick was diagnosed with aggressive Stage 3 terminal cancer, which he has documented by a letter from the Mayo Clinic. It was real and it was bad. The doctors basically told him to say his goodbyes to his family because he would be dead in days or maybe weeks, but probably days. Then through a series of strange events Rick finds himself checking out of the Mayo Clinic and heading down to Tijuana for a treatment regiment that had him cancer free in 21 days. Look folks, I’m just telling his story and you can do with it what you will, but I want to get this message out to as many people as we possibly can. Oh, and it’s not just Rick’s story, not just some one off. In fact, there is a book documenting hundreds of case studies of similar results going back decades, all tied to the Richardson Cancer Clinic: I’m telling you folks, this blew me away! And speaking of books, have you heard of “The Creature From Jekyll Island”? It’s a pretty famous book exposing the Federal Reserve Bank, but until today I had no idea that the author wrote a second book….about the very protocol that saved Rick Hill’s life: This community has been MAHA 50+ years before RFK Jr. came along! It’s truly incredible, but they’re facing extreme censorship for their message so I was only able to upload this to Rumble and X, and I have those links for you below. Trust me when I tell you this is a must watch…. Please enjoy: Backup here on X if you prefer: CANCER CURE KNOWN? Rick Hill shares how he defeated STAGE 3 terminal cancer! pic.twitter.com/psRERxmRXb — Noah Christopher (@DailyNoahNews) September 4, 2025 And now here are all the links you need… Everything we discussed in the interview can be found here: https://rncstore.com/wlt They were nice enough to set me up with a promo code so use WLT at checkout and it will save you 10% off whatever you order. If you want a free copy of the G. Edward Griffin book go here: http://myworldwithoutcancer.com Get Rick’s Bundles here: https://rncstore.com/WLT-RicksBundles Please help me get this message out to as many people as possible… I’m not claiming I can cure cancer, but we might just save a life or two or a thousand if we can get this message out. And I would also add this: I would never advise anyone to STOP their current cancer treatments if you are on them.  The only thing I would say is what do you have to lose?  Why not try this in parallel?  If Rick and all the other people giving their testimonies are wrong and it doesn’t work for you, what harm is there in trying?  It reminds me so much of when President Trump passed “Right To Try” and said let them try!  What do you have to lose?  Exactly!  That would be how I would approach it, and I also plan to start taking a daily dose as preventative care. Thank you! And a big hat tip to Rick, it was a real pleasure chatting with you today!  Please come back on the show again soon.

The Tennessee House of Representatives approved legislation on Thursday that would allow public schools to display the Ten Commandments. The bill would also allow local school districts and public charter schools to display other historically significant documents, including the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, the Tennessee Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. House Bill 47 does not require schools to display the documents, but it provides legal protection if they choose to do so. “These historic documents are the bedrock upon which our nation was founded and offer significant educational value for students,” said state Rep. Michael Hale (R-Smithville), the sponsor of the legislation, according to WZTV. “Rather than requiring these documents be displayed, the bill puts the decision where it belongs, in the hands of local school agencies. Local school leaders know their communities and classrooms best,” Hale continued. More below: A bill passed in the TN House this morning allowing the Ten Commandments to be displayed in public schools. @WKRN pic.twitter.com/M5iRj29k7G — Megan Fee (@meganfeetv) February 12, 2026 WZTV has more: The legislation allows districts and charter schools to decide how to present the documents, including size and placement. Supporters claim the measure gives schools flexibility while encouraging instruction on the nation’s and state’s founding principles. A companion version of the bill is expected to be heard in the Senate in the coming weeks. “I hope 147 school districts will do this to make sure our kids ask questions,” said state Rep. Scott Cepicky (R-Culleoka), according to NewsChannel 5 Nashville. Here’s more on the Ten Commandments in schools bill that passed the Tennessee house today. Dems Shaw, Chism, Parkinson, and Miller joined Republicans in support. https://t.co/uRhwkhNWai pic.twitter.com/Iy6JdksdVi — The Tennessee Holler (@TheTNHoller) February 12, 2026 NewsChannel 5 Nashville shared further: Democrats raised concerns about religious indoctrination in public schools. State Rep. John Ray Clemmons, D-Nashville, noted that parents already a way for their student to learn more about the Old Testament. “Parents have the choice to send their child to a religious school of their choosing if they want to,” Clemmons said. State Rep. Justin Pearson, D-Memphis, questioned the motivation behind the bill. “As a Christian person, I still believe this legislation is antithetical to the purposes of education,” said Pearson. “I’ve heard so many times that we don’t want to indoctrinate kids, we don’t want schools to be places of indoctrination. What is this?” State Rep. Harold Love Jr., D-Nashville, who also serves as Pastor of Lee Chapel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Nashville, raised concerns about religious inclusivity. “I know this bill does not address other faith traditions being able to also display their laws as a historical document,” Love said. State Rep. Johnny Shaw, D-Bolivar, is also a minister, but decided to support the measure. “I don’t think passing legislation is going to change anybody’s mind about God,” said Shaw. Rep. Monty Fritts, R-Kingston, defended the legislation by referencing Tennessee’s Constitution. “The pure fact of the matter is, our Tennessee Constitution asserts that every man has a natural and indivisible right to worship almighty God. That’s the same one who’s finger who wrote those commands into stone. It doesn’t mention any of the other false gods,” Fritts said.

Karrin Taylor Robson, a Republican running for Arizona governor, has suspended her campaign. “This decision was not an easy one. I love Arizona deeply. It is the greatest state in our country, and I would do anything to protect it from the growing radicalism of the left,” Robson said. “But we cannot afford a divisive Republican primary that drains resources and turns into months of intraparty attacks. It only weakens our conservative cause and gives the left exactly what they want: a fractured Republican Party heading into November. With so much on the line in 2026, I am not willing to contribute to that outcome,” she continued. “While I am stepping back from this race, I am not stepping back from the fight for Arizona’s future,” Robson added. Thank you, Arizona pic.twitter.com/htJcrtMsSX — Karrin Taylor Robson for AZ Gov (@KTaylorRobson) February 12, 2026 More from The New York Times: Ms. Taylor Robson, a wealthy developer and lawyer who had gained a reputation as a moderate Republican even as she worked to appeal to the party’s pro-Trump wing, had trailed Representative Andy Biggs in most primary polls. Though she earned Mr. Trump’s early endorsement, he later also bestowed his support to Mr. Biggs, who is far more aligned with the MAGA base that has determined recent Republican primary elections in Arizona. Her decision to suspend her flagging campaign was a second humbling repudiation by the party’s base, four years after it picked Kari Lake, a pro-Trump firebrand and former news anchor, over Ms. Taylor Robson in a bitter primary fight. And it is a sign that the moderate brand of Republican politics long embodied by Senator John McCain of Arizona, who died in 2018, is no longer palatable to the state’s primary voters. “I want to thank Karrin Taylor Robson for a well-run campaign and for her many contributions to keeping our state red. Her experience as a businesswoman brought a valuable perspective to the race and her deep love for Arizona and its future has always been evident. Cindy and I send our best wishes to Karrin and her family in their next chapter,” Biggs said. “This is a critical time for our party to unite and avoid a costly, divisive primary as the weak and ineffective Katie Hobbs continues to hurt Arizonans. Our campaign is now the only campaign endorsed by President Trump and Charlie Kirk, as well as dozens of state legislators and leaders across Arizona. We intend to win and defeat Katie Hobbs in November, but the time for Republicans to unite behind our campaign is now,” he continued. I want to thank Karrin Taylor Robson for a well-run campaign and for her many contributions to keeping our state red. Her experience as a businesswoman brought a valuable perspective to the race and her deep love for Arizona and its future has always been evident. Cindy and I… https://t.co/sLhNFG8Azn — Andy Biggs (@andybiggs4az) February 12, 2026 Rep. David Schweikert (R-AZ) is another candidate in the Republican primary, trailing behind Biggs in the polls. Axios shared further: Schweikert called her a “good conservative” who “played an important role in so many Republican victories through the years,” in a statement provided to Axios. Hobbs’ campaign manager Nicole DeMont said in a press statement that Robson “saw the writing on the wall and knows that Gov. Katie Hobbs is going to win re-election.” It’s unclear whether Robson will endorse another candidate in the race.

BYU wide receiver Parker Kingston has been charged with first-degree felony rape in Utah. “This charge follows an investigation that began in February 2025 after the alleged victim, a female then 20-years-old, reported a sexual assault to officers at St. George Regional Hospital,” the Washington County Attorney’s Office said in a statement. “The alleged victim reported that Kingston sexually assaulted her on February 23, 2025, in St. George. Detectives with the St. George Police Department then gathered digital and forensic evidence. They also conducted interviews with the parties involved and other witnesses. The information was then turned over to the Washington County Attorney’s Office for review,” the statement continued. “Kingston has been taken into custody and is currently being held in Washington County without bail,” it added. He has an initial appearance in court scheduled for Friday. BYU wide receiver Parker Kingston has been charged with felony rape in Washington County. https://t.co/CRpycMh6Zf pic.twitter.com/ceTF44qYS7 — Dana Greene (@dana_greene) February 12, 2026 ESPN shared further: Kingston was BYU’s leading receiver in 2025, catching 66 passes for 924 yards and five touchdowns. This is the second high-profile allegation of rape against a BYU football player in the past year. In May, former quarterback Jake Retzlaff was accused of rape in a civil lawsuit before the parties jointly agreed in June to dismiss the case with prejudice, meaning it could not be refiled. No criminal charges were filed against Retzlaff. However, he would have faced a lengthy suspension for violating BYU’s honor code, which prohibits premarital sex, and transferred to Tulane. “BYU became aware today of the arrest of Parker Kingston,” the university’s athletic department stated, according to ESPN. “The university takes any allegation very seriously, and will cooperate with law enforcement. Due to federal and university privacy laws and practices for students, the university will not be able to provide additional comment,” it added. Kingston’s arrest follows the announcement of his engagement at a basketball game last week. Parker Kingston revealing he’s engaged at the BYU Basketball game. pic.twitter.com/QDzu6FwYX7 — Ben Criddle (@CriddleBenjamin) February 8, 2026 Fox News noted: Kingston, 21, is being held without bail in St. George, a city near the Arizona border, Washington County prosecutors said. His initial appearance in court is scheduled for Friday, and punishment ranges from five years to life in prison. The wide receiver appeared to make his engagement public during BYU’s recent men’s basketball game against Houston on Saturday. Kingston and his new fiancée were shown on the jumbotron, where she flashed her new engagement ring.

Switzerland will hold a referendum in June on whether to cap its population at 10 million until 2050. The proposal, put forward by the Swiss People’s Party (SVP), seeks to limit immigration by restricting entry to newcomers once the population reaches 9.5 million, including asylum seekers and the families of foreign residents. Switzerland currently has a population of about 9.1 million. “About 27% of Swiss residents are not citizens,” The Guardian noted. Report: Switzerland will vote in mid-June on a proposal to cap its population at 10 million by 2050. The right-wing Swiss People’s Party, the plan would trigger limits on immigration, asylum, and family reunification if the population exceeds 9.5 million. The country has 9.1… pic.twitter.com/n3LRDVPSkZ — The Calvin Coolidge Project (@TheCalvinCooli1) February 12, 2026 The Guardian explained further: The SVP, the country’s largest political party, says the “population explosion” is inflating rents and straining public infrastructure and services to breaking point. The party, which has finished first in every election since 1999, has long campaigned against immigration, highlighting crimes committed by foreigners and posting images of bloody knives, hooded criminals, fists and frightened women. The radical nationalist changes it frequently proposes, such as a 2016 proposal to automatically deport immigrants found guilty of even minor offences, and a 2020 plan to end free movement with the EU, have not generally fared so well. Switzerland’s system of direct democracy allows citizens to propose so-called popular initiatives that are put to a plebiscite if they get 100,000 backers in 18 months. They are a long-favoured tool of the SVP, but only about 10% of popular initiatives pass. Both chambers of the Swiss parliament, as well as the business and financial services community, are strongly opposed to the initiative. However, the petition received support from the necessary 100,000+ citizens to trigger the referendum. Switzerland's government and parliament are against the so-called “sustainability initiative” to cap the population https://t.co/hOq4R81Wdc — Bloomberg (@business) February 11, 2026 More from The New York Times: Opponents of the idea said it would dent the Swiss economy, make it harder to attract foreign workers to fill labor shortages and harm Switzerland’s relationship with the European Union. The population cap would plunge Switzerland “into chaos and isolation,” Jürg Grossen, a centrist political leader, said on Wednesday, according to SRF. The Swiss government, a seven-member Federal Council that includes members of the Swiss People’s Party, recommended rejecting the initiative in March 2025, saying that the federal council wants to cooperate with the E.U. rather than opposing it. It warned of “far-reaching consequences” including forcing Switzerland to withdraw from several international agreements. For decades, successive waves of immigration, most of it from other European countries but also from the Middle East and North Africa, have diversified the Swiss population and stoked backlash in some quarters. According to Swiss government statistics, roughly 40 percent of residents aged over 15 are from a migrant background, most of them from European countries. In 2009, a majority of Swiss voters voted to ban the construction of new mosque minarets, reflecting anxiety about the growth of Islam in a country that, according to government statistics, is majority Christian. Roughly 48 percent of Swiss support capping the population at 10 million and 41 percent oppose the idea, according to a poll released in December by Leewas, a Swiss-based polling firm, and commissioned by two Swiss media groups. Governments across Europe have hardened their policies on immigration since the European migration crisis of 2015-16, when more than a million people fleeing wars and poverty arrived on the continent’s shores by boat.