About 200,000 Americans a year die of sepsis. When a cancer patient dies of sepsis it is often because chemotherapy destroyed the patient's immune system, allowing sepsis to easily kill the patient. The death is probably counted as a sepsis death, not a cancer death even though sepsis rarely kills a person if their immune system is performing normally. This is just one of many ways that the medical community hides the true performance of chemotherapy and radiation.
After 2003, the number of new cancer cases became artificially reduced which allowed agencies like the American Cancer Society to claim that progress is being made. In 2004 the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reported that VA hospitals in at least 13 states are no longer reporting cancer cases. As many as 70,000 new cancer cases (about 5% of the national total) were not reported.
The Foundation of Conventional Medicine is Made of Sand
One of the most important theories of conventional medicine is know as monomorphism. It is based on the work of Louis Pasteur. On his deathbed he admitted that he was wrong and Bechamp (Pierre Antione) who promoted pleomorphism was right. Never the less, conventional medicine had clung to monomorphism to the determent of patients everywhere.
Bacteria and other micr oogranism are not seen as dangerous, invasive or pathogenic, nor infectious. They are seen as performing simply necessary cleanup functions in response to cues from the local body tissues. Thus, it would make sense that one would treat an infectious illness by simply adjusting the inner terrain of the body to allow it to become more healthful, thus eliminating the need for the presence of the "infectious" organisms. Any attempt to treat an infectious illness with antibiotics or other "aggressive" means would be seen in most cases as short-sighted and would be attempting to treat a symptom of a deep imbalance, rather than addressing the deep imbalance. Further antibiotics and other aggressive antimicrobial means would actually further imbalance and disrupt the inner terrain, thus eventually leading to further degeneration.
The Wrong Theory Is Still Supported by Conventional Medicine
The conventional cancer theory states that cancer is a growth of abnormal cells caused by a sequence of DNA mutations. This theory was rejected by its primary supporter in 1998, but it is still repeated throughout conventional medicine in order to get research grants for exciting gene research. This incorrect theory was peoposed by Dr. Robert A. Weinberg an MIT professof of biology. This theory was received with open arms by cancer research doctors who knew they could get millions of dollars for mapping cancer DNA, a job that would take years for each "type" of cancer. In 1998 Weinberg announced that he had made a mistake and that genetic changes were not responsible cancer Natl. Acad. Sci. USA Vol. 93, pp. 6665-6670, June 1996 Cell Biology. Read the full story on the Insidious Misinformation page.
In 2003 and 2004, there was a lot of publicity about the “great new cancer drugs.” In March 2004, the Executive Editor of Fortune Magazine, Clifton Leaf, wrote an extensive article about these new drugs. The title of the article was all revealing, "Why We're Losing the War on Cancer.” To order this article**. Leaf reported that the two new blockbuster drugs, Avastin and Erbitux, weren't effective, that Avastin, "managed to extend the lives of some 400 patients with terminal colorectal cancer by 4.7 months" considering the possible side effects, that is not really worth the risk when there are safe effective alternative treatments available. And Leaf reported that Erbitux did even worse, “has not been shown to prolong patients' lives at all" and it costs $2,400 a week. It is typical for the Cancer industry and mainstream media to pump up any of the new therapies. Leaf admits, Fortune magazine ran a cover article on Interleukin-2 with a "Cancer Breakthrough" headline. As any oncologist will tell you, it wasn't.
The article goes on to report that Europe seems to have the same problems. The twelve new anticancer drugs approved in Europe between 1995 and 2000 did not improve survival or quality of life nor were they safer than the older drugs. However, they were several times more expensive. Here are some extensive statistics** regarding the progress of conventional cancer treatment from the United Kingdom.
In 2005 Herceptin was hyped as an "astonishingly effective wonder drug." However, the truth is far different. Ralph W. Moss, Ph.D. has written a report on the Herceptin deception. Here is what Michael Janson, MD, past president of both the American College for Advancement in Medicine (ACAM) and the American Preventive Medical Association (APMA) has to say about this special report:
"Dr. Moss has once again cut through the hype of medical research and media reports with a keen, objective analysis that presents the true picture of scientific results regarding the latest 'miracle' in cancer therapy. He reveals the hollow core of the recent medical reports on Herceptin, showing that it is not what has been claimed, and that the statistics were manipulated to make it seem far better than it is, while underplaying the potential risks. The conflict of interest among the authors that he notes is a danger to honest researchers and to the public who might mistakenly take this drug (and many others) in inappropriate situations. Let's hope that his analysis gets wide attention."
Avastin Update 2009
In 2008 to 2009 a colon cancer trial was run to see if using the drug soon after surgery would prevent reoccurrence. 2,700 colon cancer patients were involved:
- One group received six months of chemotherapy.
- The other group received six months of the same chemotherapy and a year of Avastin.
The results showed no significant difference between the survival rate of the groups. Still sales of Avastin remain in the two billion dollar range. It will be interesting to see if the manufacturer’s marketing campaign (smoozing doctors and giving lucrative charge backs) will be able to keep sales in that neighborhood.
Remember Lung Cancer Drug Iressa?
From a Newsday article of December 18, 2004, "Shocking the medical and financial worlds, a highly touted lung cancer drug, Iressa, failed to help patients live longer in a major clinical trial." How can these hyped-up drugs get all the way to clinical trials? The promise of tremendous profits is the only explanation.
Doctors do not prescribe the newest drugs because they are better for you. Everyone's body chemistry is different, a treatment that worked for some people may not work for you. Conventional doctors do nothing to determine which of the available treatments for your cancer will work for you. They just prescribe the newest pharmaceutical drug. Pharmaceutical companies love this because the newest drug is usually the most expensive. Doctors do this because:
- They do not want to appear to be behind the times.
- The new cancer drugs appear to be better because of the hype that accompanies their release
- The side effects of new drugs are not well-known in the beginning.
Pharmaceutical companies strongly encourage the use of the newest drugs because they want everybody thinking that newer is better. The real motivation for this is the seven year duration of patents. Only dugs with unexpired patents can evoke ridiculous markups*.
John LaMattina, president of Pfizer Global Research and Development in 2007, contributes news on drugs and R&D in the pharma industry for Forbs. On 7/30/2013 he wrote an article titled “Are 90% Of FDA Drugs Approved In Last 30 Years No More Effective Than Existing Drugs?” The article went on to make arguments for both sides, but it seems pretty obvious that newer is not often better.
Cancer cells obtain their energy from fermentation. Normal cells obtain their energy from oxygenation (except muscle cells when they are completely exhausted). This is a tremendous difference. Alternative cancer treatments such as Cancell and Paw Paw target this difference. Conventional cancer research ignores this tremendous difference and continues to seek methods to destroy fast growing. Our immune system contains mostly fast-growing cells. The worst thing to do when you are sick is to attack your immune system.
Conventional research seems to do everything wrong. For example, it relies heavily on animal testing. Here is an article that exposes the fallacy of using animals for medical research*.
Conventional vs Alternative Effectiveness
The standard position of conventional Western medicine regarding alternative treatments such as nutrition and planned based medicine is that such treatments are not as effective as drugs.
In an Independent (UK) news article of 08 December 2003 , Allen Rosesl, a vice-president of GlaxoSmithKline(a large international pharmaceutical company) was quoted as saying, "most drugs work in 30 to 50 per cent of people" (who take them). This is is in stark contrast to a 2007 study published by the journal Clinical Oncology. The study was based on an analysis of the results of all the randomized, controlled clinical trials (RCTs) performed in Australia and the US that reported a statistically significant increase in 5-year survival due to the use of chemotherapy in adult malignancies. Survival data were drawn from the Australian cancer registries and the US National Cancer Institute's Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) registry spanning the period January 1990 until January 2004. The authors found that the contribution of chemotherapy to 5-year survival in adults was:
- 2.3 percent in Australia
- 2.1 percent in the USA
They emphasize that, for reasons explained in detail in the study, these figures "should be regarded as the upper limit of effectiveness" (i.e., they are an optimistic rather than a pessimistic estimate). For more details on this study:
Finding actual studies on cancer patients taking alternative cancer treatments are rare. There two that I know:
- The study presented on this web site Cancell Effectiveness Study* which showed a 50% recovery rate.
- The Paw Paw case histories for 100 terminal cancer patients performed at Purdue College by Jerry McLaughlin which also showed a 50% recovery rate. By agreement with Jerry, I cannot publish this study.
Don't miss the subsection below "Taxol Spreads Breast Cancer" and especially the pink text.
A study of over 10,000 patients shows clearly that chemo’s supposedly strong track record with Hodgkin’s disease (lymphoma) is actually a lie. Patients who underwent chemo were 14 times more likely to develop leukemia and 6 times more likely to develop cancers of the bones, joints, and soft tissues than those patients who did not undergo chemotherapy (NCI Journal 87:10).
Safe and effective plant based treatments cannot produce large profits because they cannot be patented. Large profits are needed to pay for the expensive FDA approved clinical trials. So plant based treatments never get FDA approved to treat a disease. Your doctor can only prescribe treatments that are FDA approved. If your doctor prescribes treatments that are not FDA approved, he or she can be sued.
From the 12th December 2002 issue of Journal of the American Medical Association, in a review with James Spencer Malpas, M.D., D.Phil. St. Bartholomew's Hospital London, United Kingdom:
"A recent randomized trial of treatment for stage one multiple melanoma by Riccardi and colleagues (British Journal of Cancer 2000;82:1254-60) showed no advantage of conventional chemotherapy over no treatment."
The above statement is in direct contrast to popular belief that chemo is likely to help you. The reason for this belief is statements like this:
"1998 was truly one of the most exciting years for cancer research," said Harmon Eyre, MD, executive vice president for research and medical affairs for the American Cancer Society (ACS). "While we are closer than ever to finding answers..." followed by a pitch for more donations.
Another popular belief that is repeated in movies and TV shows is that not taking chemo is dumb or cowardice. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is the smart cancer patient who does enough research to learn the fraud of conventional cancer treatment and only the brave who stand up against the pressures of oncologists.
Who is telling the truth?
In 1986 McGill Cancer Center scientists surveyed 118 oncologists who specialized in lung cancer. They were asked if they would take chemo if they developed lung cancer. Three-quarters replied that they WOULD NOT TAKE CHEMO. From "Reclaiming Our Health" by John Robbins, 1996. Published by HJ Kramer, Box 1082, Tiburon, CA 94920. Although 1986 seems like a long time ago, chemo drugs have changed very little since then if at all.
In 1984 an unusual convention of doctors was held in Chicago. Nine eminent physicians from all over the United States spoke to an auditorium packed with their colleagues. The name of the conference was Dissent in Medicine. The theme at the conference was the propensity of the nation's medical hierarchy to lie to the public. Among the speakers was Alan S. Levin, M.D., professor of immunology at the University of California, San Francisco, Medical School, who stated that "Practicing physicians are intimidated into using regimes which they know do not work. One of the most glaring examples is chemotherapy, which does not work for the majority of cancers."
Another example of distortion is an Oxford University study published in The Lancet which touts the effectiveness of today's conventional cancer treatments. It supports the use of chemotherapy and states that women who used tamoxifen for five years reduced the breast cancer death rate by one-third. This story was picked up by many newspapers and got wide distribution. However, if you look closely at the statistics, you find that your odds of getting breast cancer without using tamoxifen is 1.3%, and with tamoxifen it drops to .68%. That represents a 49% difference between the two numbers (as cited), but just a little over one-half of one-percent difference (.62%) in real terms. A half percent in real world terms is vastly different from the 49% improvement "stated" in the studies - and hardly worth this risk:
- Tamoxifen can cause cancer of the uterus, ovaries, and gastrointestinal tract.
- A study at Johns Hopkins found that tamoxifen promotes liver cancer.
- In 1996, a division of the World Health Organization, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, declared tamoxifen a Group I carcinogen.
- In an abruptly curtailed NCI study, 33 women that took tamoxifen developed endometrial cancer, 17 suffered blood clots in the lungs, 13 developed deep vein thrombosis (blood clots in major blood vessels) and many experienced confusion, depression, and memory loss.
Taxol Spreads Breast Cancer
Taxol is often called the "gold standard of chemo." The following report gives you a good idea of the dangers of even the best chemo.
As reported at the 27th Annual San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, Dec 2004, (abstract 6014), using a technique that quantifies circulating tumor cells, German investigators from Friedrich-Schiller University in Jena, have shown that neoadjuvant chemotherapy with paclitaxel (taxol) causes a massive release of cells into the circulation, while at the same time reducing the size of the tumor. The finding help explain the fact that complete pathologic responses do not correlate well with improvements in survival.
In the study, according to Katharina Pachmann, M.D., professor of experimental oncology and hematology, breast cancer patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy gave blood samples in which epithelial antigen-positive cells were isolated. Such cells are detected in most breast cancer patients but are rarely found in normal subjects. The investigators measured the levels of cirulating tumor cells before and during primary chemotherapy with several different cytotoxic agents.
Paclitaxel (taxol) produces the greatest degree of tumor shrinkage but also the greatest release of circulating tumor cells. In three different paclitaxel-containing regimens, circulating cell numbers massively increased, whereas tumor size decreased. These cells remained in the circulation for at least five months after surgery.
The tumor shrinks, but more cells are found in the circulation. This corresponds with a high pathologic complete response during paclitaxel treatment, but in the end, this is not reflected in improved survival. These cells are alive in the circulation. The results indicate that monitoring of circulating tumor cells can contribute to understanding of tumor-blood interactions and may provide a valuable tool for therapy monitoring in solid tumors.
Laetrile has been used for 100 years to prevent stray cancer cells from starting a new cancer site. Will your doctor tell you about it? Nope. The pharmaceutical company thugs (make no mistake pharmaceutical companies make the oil companies look like angles) are so scared of Laetrile that they bribed the FDA to make it illegal. This is incredible because Laetrile is found in foods that the FDA knows are safe.
Although Laetrile can suppress the spread of cancer and is a good preventative, it is often ineffective on tumors. The reason for this lack of success on tumors may be due to the fact that tumors are beyond the size that Laetrile can deal with. Still it is used by many aware cancer patients to prevent the spread of their cancer. Cancer is spread by small groups of cells moving to another part of the body so Laetrile can be effective against them.
The conclusion of a long-term research project by the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) was published in the 4 August 2004 edition of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute. The new study throws doubt on the value the MOF regimen which uses 5-FU, the most common anti-colon cancer agent used by conventional medicine. 5-FU is moderately effective at shrinking existing tumors, but the effect is almost always temporary.
From "Cure Your Cancer" by Bill Henderson.
Our government's Medicare system encourages the fraud and abuse that is rampant among oncologists. For example, the chemotherapy drug Etoposide is sold wholesale to oncologists for $7.50 for a 100mg dose. The allowable Medicare reimbursement, however, is $129.34 per dose. The consumer (you and I) pay a co-payment of $25.87 - almost three and a half times the doctor's cost! Medicare pays the rest from our tax dollars.
According to the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), the average oncologist makes $253,000 a year. Of this, 75% is profit on chemotherapy drugs administered in his or her office. All of these drugs, like Tamoxifen and Etoposide, treat the symptoms of cancer, not its causes.
A recent survey of the 64 oncologists working at the McGill Cancer Therapy Center in Montreal, Canada found that 58 of them (91%) said they would not take chemo- therapy or allow their family members to take it for cancer treatment. Why? Too toxic and not effective.
People are Waking Up
In the Seattle Post-Intelligencer article of 5 Sept 02, entitled, "Many cancer patients getting relief from alternative treatments, study shows," Carol Smith reported that, "Seven out of 10 adult cancer patients in Western Washington are using alternative therapies ." The survey, done in conjunction with Bastyr University in Kenmore and the Oregon Health & Science University in Portland, was based on interviews with 356 patients who had breast, prostate or colon cancer.
From Physician and Author Dr. Cynthia Foster MD:
Cytotoxic chemotherapy kills cancer cells by way of a certain mechanism called First Order Kinetics. This simply means that the drug does not kill a constant number of cells, but a constant proportion of cells. So, for example, a certain drug will kill 1/2 of all the cancer cells, then 1/2 of what is left, and then 1/2 of that, and so on. So, we can see that not every cancer cell necessarily is going to be killed. This is important because chemotherapy is not going to kill every cancer cell in the body. The body has to kill the cancer cells that are left over after the chemotherapy is finished. This fact is well known by oncologists. Now, how can cancer patients possibly fight even a few cancer cells when their immune systems have been disabled and this is yet another stress on the body, and theyre bleeding because they have hardly any platelets left from the toxic effects of the chemotherapy? This is usually why, when chemotherapy is stopped, the cancer grows again and gets out of control. We have now created a vicious cycle, where doctors are trying to kill the cancer cells, and the patient is not able to fight the rest, so the doctors have to give the chemotherapy again, and then the patient cant fight the rest of the cancer cell, and then the doctors give the chemotherapy again, and so on.
Purchase her book "Buzzed: The Straight Facts about the Most Used and Abused Drugs" from Amazon.com.
The following sections summarize the findings on conventional treatments presented in G. Edward Griffin's enlightening book "World Without Cancer.**" Much of the information in the book is also on a video**. and the audio version can be downloaded from the World Without Cancer** web site.
This, by no means is the only book on the subject. For a list of similar books, go to this book list*.
Each of the three summary sections below, contains a link to details further down the page.
Surgery is the least harmful conventional treatment. Sometimes a life-saving, stop-gap measure. No evidence that patients who receive radical or extensive surgical options live any longer than those who receive the most conservative options, or, surprisingly, those who receive none at all. Believed to increase the likelihood of spreading cancer to other locations.
When dealing with internal tumors affecting reproductive or vital organs, the statistical rate of long-term survival is, on the average, 10 to 15%. After metastasis, the statistical chances for long-term survival are close to zero. For more details, see Surgery Details.
Radiology is harmful in many ways:
- Spreads cancer and weakens the patients resistance to other diseases.
- Produces serious and painful side-effects, including heart failure.
No evidence that treated patients live any longer, on the average, than those not treated. Statistical rate of long-term survival after metastasis is close to zero. For more details, see Radiation Details.
Chemo spreads the cancer through weakening of immunological defense mechanism plus general toxicity. Leaves patient susceptible to other diseases and infections, often leading to death from these causes. Produces extremely serious side-effects. No evidence that treated patients live any longer, on the average, than untreated patients. Statistical rate of long-term survival after metastasis is close to zero. For more details see, Chemo Statistics.
Vitamin therapy, such as B17 is non-toxic. Side effects include increased appetite, weight gain, lowered blood pressure, increased hemoglobin and red-blood cell count. Eliminates or sharply reduces pain without narcotics. Builds up bodys resistance to other diseases. Is a natural substance found in foods and is compatible with human biological experience. For some people, B17 has been reported to destroy cancer cells while nourishing non-cancer cells.
Considering that most patients begin vitamin therapy only after they have been cut, burned, or poisoned by orthodox treatments and have been told that there no longer is any hope, the number of patients who have been brought back to normal health on a long-term survival basis (15%) is most encouraging.
Besides the introductory text below, this section contains the following subsections:
Surgery is the least harmful of the three. In some cases, it can be a life-saving, stop-gap measureparticularly where intestinal blockages must be relieved to prevent immediate death from secondary complications. Surgery also has the psychological advantage of visibly removing the tumor. From that point of view, it offers the temporary 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. The most highly malignant tumors of all generally are considered inoperable.
A further complication of surgery is the fact that cutting into the tumoreven for a biopsydoes two things that aggravate the condition. First, it causes physical trauma to the area. This triggers off the healing process which, in turn, brings more trophoblast cells into being as a by-product of that process. (See Chapter LV) The other effect is that, if not all the malignant tissue is removed, what remains tends to be encased in scar tissue from the surgery Scar tissue tends to act as a barrier between the cancer cell and the rest of the body. Consequently, the cancer tends to become insulated from the action of the pancreatic enzymes which, as we have seen, are so essential in exposing trophoblast cells to the surveillant action of the white blood cells.
Perhaps the greatest indictment of all against surgery is the gnawing suspicion among even many of the worlds top surgeons that, statistically, there is no solid evidence that patients who submit to surgery have any greater life expectancy on the average, than those who do not. This is an area which desperately needs intensive and unbiased study.
The first statistical analysis of this question was compiled in 1844 by Dr. Leroy dEtoilles and published by the French Academy of Science. It is, to date (1997), the most extensive study of its kind ever released. Over a period of thirty years, case histories of 2,781 patients were submitted by 174 physicians. The average survival after surgery was only one year and five monthsnot much different than the average today.
Dr. Leroy dEtoilles separated his statistics according to whether the patient submitted to surgery or caustics, or refused such treatment. His findings were electric:
The net value of surgery or caustics was in prolonging life two months for men and six months for women. But that was only in the first few years after the initial diagnosis. After that period, those who had not accepted treatment had the greater survival potential by about fifty percent. (Walter H. Waishe, The Anatomy, Physiology, Pathology and Treatment of Cancer, (Boston: Ticknor & Co., 1844).)
1844 was a long time ago, but more recent surveys have produced nearly the same results. For example, it long has been accepted practice for patients with breast cancer to have not only the tumor removed but the entire breast and the lymph nodes as well. The procedure sometimes included removal of the ovaries also on the theory that cancer is stimulated by their hormones. Finally, in 1961, a large-scale controlled test was begun, called the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast Project. After seven-and-a-half years of statistical analysis, the results were conclusive:
There was no significant difference between the percentage of patients remaining alive who had received the smaller operation and those who had received the larger. (Ravdin, R.G., et.al., "Results of a Clinical Trial Concerning The Worth of Prophylactic Cophorectomy for Breast Carcinoma," Surgery, Gynecology & Obstetrics, 131:1055, Dec., 1970. Also see "Breast Cancer Excision Less with Selection," Medical Tribune, Oct. 6, 1971, p. 1.)
A similar study conducted between 1984 and 1990 at the University of California-Irvine College of Medicine produced the same conclusion: "All other factors being equal, there is no difference between BCS [breast-conserving surgery] and total mastectomy in either disease-free or overall survival. ("Treatment Differences and Other Prognostic Factors Related to Breast Cancer Survival: Delivery Systems and Medical Outcomes," by Anna Lee Feldstein, Hoda Anton-Culver, and Paul J. Feldstein, Journal of the American Medical Association, ISSN:0098-7484, April 20, 1994.)
Surgery Statistics from Hardin B. Jones, Ph.D.
One of the nations top statisticians in the field of cancer is Hardin B. Jones, Ph.D., former professor of medical physics and physiology at the University of California at Berkeley. After years of analyzing clinical records, this is the report he delivered at a convention of the American Cancer Society:
In regard to surgery, no relationship between intensity of surgical treatment and duration of survival has been found in verified malignancies. On the contrary, simple excision of cancers has produced essentially the same survival as radical excision and dissection of the lymphatic drainage. (Hardin B. Jones, Ph.D. "A Report on Cancer," paper delivered to the ACSs 11th Annual Science Writers Conference, New Orleans, Mar. 7, 1969.)
That data, of course, related to surgery of the breast. Turning his attention to surgery in general, Dr. Jones continued:
Although there is a dearth of untreated cases for statistical comparison with the treated, it is surprising that the death risks of the two groups remain so similar. In the comparisons it has been assumed that the treated and untreated cases are independent of each other. In fact, that assumption is incorrect. Initially, all cases are untreated. With the passage of time, some receive treatment, and the likelihood of treatment increases with the length of time since origin of the disease. Thus, those cases in which the neoplastic process progresses slowly [and thus automatically favors a long-term survival] are more likely to become "treated" cases. For the same reason, however, those individuals are likely to enjoy longer survival, whether treated or not. Life tables truly representative of untreated cancer patients must be adjusted for the fact that the inherently longer-lived cases are more likely to be transferred to the "treated" category than to remain in the "untreated until death."
The apparent life expectancy of untreated cases of cancer after such adjustment in the table seems to be greater than that of the treated cases.
What, then, is the statistical chance for long-term survival of five years or more after surgery? That, we are told, depends on the location of the cancer, how fast it is growing, and whether it has spread to a secondary point. For example, two of the most common forms of cancer requiring surgery are of the breast and the lung. With breast cancer, only sixteen percent will respond favorably to surgery or X-ray therapy. With lung cancer, the percentage of patients who will survive five years after surgery is somewhere between five and ten percent.1 And these are optimistic figures when compared to survival expectations for some other types of cancers such as testicular chorionepitheliomas. ("Results of Treatment of Carcinoma of the Breast Based on Pathological Staging," by F.R.C. Johnstone, M.D., Surgery, Gynecology & Obstetrics, 134:211, 1972. Also "Consultants Comment," by George Crile, Jr., M.D., Calif Medical Digest, Aug., 1972, P. 839. Also "Project Aims at Better Lung Cancer Survival," Medical Tribune, Oct. 20, 1971. Also statement by Dr. Lewis A. Leone, Director of the Department of Oncology at Rhode Island Hospital in Providence, as quoted in "Cancer Controls Still Unsuccessful," L.A. Herald Examiner, June 6, 1972, p. C-12.)
When we turn to cancers which have metastasized to secondary locations, the picture becomes virtually hopelesssurgery or no surgery As one cancer specialist summarized it bluntly:
A patient who has clinically detectable distant metastases when first seen has virtually a hopeless prognosis, as do patients who were apparently free of distant metastases at that time but who subsequently return with distant metastases. (Johnstone, "Results of Treatment of Carcinoma of the Breast," op. cit.)
An objective appraisal, therefore, is that the statistical rate of long-term survival after surgery is, on the average at best, only ten or fifteen percent. And once the cancer has metastasized to a second location, surgery has almost no survival value. The reason is that, like the other therapies approved by orthodox medicine, surgery removes only the tumor. It does not remove the cause.
Besides the introductory text directly below, this section contains the following subsections:
The rationale behind X-ray therapy is the same as with surgery. The objective is to remove the tumor, but to do so by burning it away rather than cutting it out. Here, also, it is primarily the non-cancer cell that is destroyed. The more malignant the tumor, the more resistant it is to radio therapy. If this were not so, then X-ray therapy would have a high degree of successwhich, of course, it does not.
If the average tumor is composed of both cancer and non-cancer cells, and if radiation is more destructive to non-cancer cells than to cancer cells, then it would be logical to expect the results to be a reduction of tumor size, but also an increase in the percentage of malignancy. This is, in fact, exactly what happens.
Commenting on this mechanism, Dr. John Richardson explained it this way:
Radiation and/or radiomimetic poisons will reduce palpable, gross or measurable tumefaction. Often this reduction may amount to seventy-five percent or more of the mass of the growth. These agents have a selective effectradiation and poisons. They selectively kill everything except the definitively neoplastic [cancer] cells.
For example, a benign uterine myoma will usually melt away under radiation like snow in the sun. If there be neoplastic cells in such tumor, these will remain. The size of the tumor may thus be decreased by ninety percent while the relative concentration of definitively neoplastic cells is thereby increased by ninety percent.
As all experienced clinicians knowor at least should know after radiation or poisons have reduced the gross tumefaction of the lesion the patients general well-being does not substantially improve. To the contrary, there is often an explosive or fulminating increase in the biological malignancy of his lesion. This is marked by the appearance of diffuse metastasis and a rapid deterioration in general vitality followed shortly by death. Open letter to interested doctors, Noc 1972; Griffin, Private papers, op. cit.
And so we see that X-ray therapy is cursed with the same drawbacks of surgery. But it has one more: It actually increases the likelihood that cancer will develop in other parts of the body.
Another good reason to use alternative treatments first: posted to Pediatricbraintumors@yahoogroups.com on 22 Mar 2002:
My name is Jim Carr. I am the father of a 22 year old daughter (Erin) who was diagnosed with a Pineoblastoma at age 16. This was treated with surgery followed by chemo. Prior to the completion of chemo she lapsed into a non-responsive state from damage to the white matter of the brain from the radiation. Doctors sent her home (there was nothing more the hospital could do) with the belief that she would never improve. After six months of providing round-the-clock care ourselves (insurance did not cover home care and she was constantly at risk since she could not move anything - she would not have been able to clear her throat if choking, especially if she vommited) she began speaking. Today she is attending community college, but it is unlikely she will ever have gainful employment due to the permanent damage to brain centers for problem solving and other areas.
Radiation Increases Chances of Spreading Cancer
Excessive exposure to radioactivity is an effective way to induce cancer. This was first demonstrated by observing the increased cancer incidence among the survivors of Hiroshima, but it has been corroborated by many independent studies since then. For example, a recent headline in a national-circulation newspaper tells us: FIND ALARMING NUMBER OF CANCER CASES IN PEOPLE WHO HAD X-RAY THERAPY 20 YEARS AGO.
The Textbook of Medical Surgical Nursing, a standard reference for Registered Nurses, is most emphatic on this point. It says:
This is an area of public health concern because it may involve large numbers of people who may be exposed to low levels of radiation over a long period of time. The classic example is of the women employed in the early 1920s to paint watch and clock dials with luminizing (radium containing) paints. Years later, bone sarcomas resulted from the carcinogenic effect of the radium. Similarly, leukemia occurs more frequently in radiologists than other physicians. Another example is the Hiroshima survivors who have shown the effects of low levels of radiation....
Among the most serious of the late consequences of irradiation damage is the increased susceptibility to malignant metaplasia and the development of cancer at sites of earlier irradiation. Evidence cited in support of this relationship refers to the increased incidence of carcinoma of skin, bone, and lung after latent periods of 20 years and longer following irradiation of those sites. Further support has been adduced from the relatively high incidence of carcinoma of the thyroid 7 years and longer following low-dosage irradiation of the thymus in childhood, and from the increased incidence of leukemia following total body irradiation at any age. (Brunner, Emerson, Ferguson, and Doris Suddarth, Textbook of Medical-Surgical Nursing, (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Co., 1970) 2nd Edition, p. 198.)
In 1971, a research team at the University of Buffalo, under the direction of Dr. Robert W. Gibson, reported that less than a dozen routine medical X-rays to the same part of the body increases the risk of leukemia in males by at least sixty percent. Other scientists have become increasingly concerned about the growing American infatuation with X-rays and have urged a stop to the madness, even calling for an end to the mobile chest X-ray units for the detection of TB. And these "routine" X-rays are harmlessly mild compared to the intense radiation beamed into the bodies of cancer patients today.
X-rays induce cancer because of at least two factors. First, they do physical damage to the body which triggers 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.
Now to the question of statistics. Again we find that, on the average, there is little or no solid evidence that radiation actually improves the patients chances for survival. The National Surgical Adjuvant Breast Project, previously mentioned in connection with surgery, also conducted studies on the effect of irradiation, and here is a summary of their findings:
From the data available it would seem that the use of post-operative irradiation has provided no discernible advantage to patients so treated in tenns of increasing the proportion who were free of disease for as long as five years. (Fisher, B., et. al., "Postoperative Radiotherapy in the Treatment of Breast Cancer; Results of the NSAPP Clinical Trial," Annals of Surgery, 172, No.4, Od. 1970.)
This is an embarrassingly difficult fact for a radiologist to face, for it means, quite literally, that there is little justification for his existence in the medical fraternity. If he were to admit publicly what he knows privately, a guy could talk himself right out of a job! Consequently, one does not expect to hear these facts being discussed by radiologists or those whose livelihood depends on the construction, sale, installation, use, or maintenance of the multi-million-dollar linear accelerators. It comes as a pleasant surprise, therefore, to hear these truths spoken frankly and openly by three well known radiologists sharing the same platform at the same medical convention. They were William Powers, M.D., Director of the Division of Radiation Therapy at the Washington University School of Medicine, Phillip Rubin, M.D., Chief of the Division of Radiotherapy at the University of Rochester Medical School, and Vera Peters, M.D., of the Princess Margaret Hospital in Toronto, Canada. Dr. Powers stated:
Although preoperative and postoperative radiation therapy have been used extensively and for decades, it is still not possible to prove unequivocal clinical benefit from this combined treatment.... Even if the rate of cure does improve with a combination of radiation and therapy, it is necessary to establish the cost in increased morbidity which may occur in patients without favorable response to the additional therapy. ("Preoperative and Postoperative Radiation Therapy for Cancer," speech delivered to the Sixth National Cancer Conference, sponsored by the American Cancer Society and the National Cancer Institute, Denver, Colorado, Sept. 1820, 1968.)
Radiation and Heart Attacks
What Dr. Powers means when he speaks of "increased morbidity" is that radiation treatments make people ill. In a study at Oxford University dealing with breast cancer, it was found that many women who received radiation died of heart attacks because their hearts had been weakened by the treatment. (Breast Cancer Update/Q & A, by Ridgely Ochs, Newsday, December 19, 1995, p. B23.) Radiation also weakens the immune system which can lead to death from secondary causes such as pneumonia or other internal infections. Many patients whose death certificates state heart failure or pulmonary pneumonia or respiratory failure really die from canceror, to be more exactfrom their cancer treatment. This is another reason that cancer statisticsbased as they are on data from death certificatesconceal the truth about the failure of orthodox cancer therapy.
Effect of Radiation On Survival
At the medical convention of radiologists previously mentioned, Dr. Phillip Rubin reviewed the cancer-survival statistics published in the Journal of the American Medical Association. Then he concluded:
The clinical evidence and statistical data in numerous reviews are cited to illustrate that no increase in survival has been achieved by the addition of irradiation.
To which Dr. Peters added:
In carcinoma of the breast, the mortality rate still parallels the incidence rate, thus proving that there has been no true improvement in the successful treatment of the disease over the past thirty years, even though there has been technical improvement in both surgery and radiotherapy during that time.
The Radiation Study
John W. Gofman, M.D., Ph. D. Professor Emeritus University of California, Berkeley performed a large study that concluded:
Medical radiation is a highly important cause (probably the principal cause) of cancer mortality in the United States during the Twentieth Century. Medical radiation means, primarily, exposure by xrays (including fluoroscopy and CT scans).
Medical radiation, received even at very low and moderate doses, is an important cause of death from Ischemic Heart Disease; the probable mechanism is radiation-induction of mutations in the coronary arteries, resulting in dysfunctional clones (mini-tumors) of smooth muscle cells.
Click this link to read the Executive Summary** of Professor Gofman's study.
People want to read testinonials, however they are usually misleading because they do not present the failures along with the successes. The following testimonial is different, it describes the side effects of radiation. Everone is different and will have different results, but what is most significant is what her radiologist told her son about side effects, "the worst would be a bad sun brn on the upper theigh." The actual sibe effects experienced by his mother:
- For three weeks her inner and outer vagina and surrounding areas "felt like they were in flames."
- For between four and five months she had terrible, continuous diarrhea from permanent radiation damage to her intestines.
- Hard, thick scar tissue in her abdomen
- Adhesions in her intestines which now get stuck causing medical emergencies
There is a common condition called "Radiation Enteritis" that radiologists do not always warn people about when treating them with radiation. This is what happened to Elliot's mother. Radiation enteritis causes frequent, sudden, watery or bloody diarrhea. There is no significantly effective way to treat it. People who end up with radiation enteritis become a sort of invalid due to the possibility of sudden diarrhea.According to Elliot, radiation can also cause intestinal adhesions where the intestines get stuck on an adhesion. When this happens, the intestines shut down causing terrible pain and vomiting, and necessitating immediate medical intervention. The adhesions can be removed surgically, but there is VERY significant likelihood that they will grow back, and new adhesions may form from the surgery done to remove the original adhesion. During any surgery on or around the intestines, there is the possibility that the surgeon may cut or nick some part of the intestine. A perforated intestine is extremely serious. Any one considering radiation can check into these conditions and get a percentage chance of occurrence. Conventional medicine keeps percentage occurrence of these side effects. If a surgeon does not exactly the percentage of each possible side effect, he or she has no right recommending the surgery.
For the complete story: For Anyone Thinking of Having Mainstream Cancer Treatment**, from the Healing Cancer Naturally web site written by Elliot Yudenfriend who cured himself of lymphoma, considered incurable by mainstream medicine.
The journal, "Clinical Oncology" has published a paper entitled "The Contribution of Cytotoxic Chemotherapy to 5-year Survival in Adult Malignancies" It analyzed the benefit of chemotherapy for adults with the most common types of cancer. The authors are all oncologists: Associate Professor Graeme Morgan, Professor Robyn Ward, and Dr. Michael Barton. The paper was based on all of the randomized, controlled clinical trials Australia and the US that reported a statistically significant increase in 5-year survival due to the use of chemotherapycovering the period January 1990 until January 2004. The study concluded that chemotherapy contributes to slightly over 2% to improved survival in cancer patients.
The following appeared in the Los Angeles Times on August 18, 1973, under the heading: CANCER "CURE" LAETRILE
Helene Brown, FDA spokesperson, ... said:
... there are now 10 kinds of cancer which can be cured or controlled by chemotherapythe treatment of disease by drugs.
Less than a month later, while speaking at an ACS national conference on cancer nursing, Mrs. Brown said flatly: "Present medical knowledge makes it possible to cure seventy percent of cancers, if they are detected early."
Spokespersons for the American Cancer Society never tire of perpetuating the myth of "proven cures." But they seldom look quite so foolish in the eyes of those who know anything about true survival statistics as they do when they speak of cures by chemotherapy.
We briefly have viewed the miserable results obtained by orthodox surgery and radiation. However, the record of so-called anti-cancer drugs is even worse. The primary reason for this is that most of them currently in use are highly poisonous, not just to cancer but to the rest of the body as well. Generally they are more deadly to healthy tissue than they are to the malignant cell.
All substances can be toxic if taken in sufficient quantity. This is true of aspirin, sugar, Laetrile, or even water. But, unlike those, the anti-cancer drugs are poisonous, not as a result of an overdose or as a side-effect, but as a primary effect. In other words, their poisonous nature is not tolerated merely as a necessary price to pay in order to achieve some desired effect, it is the desired effect.
These chemicals are selected because they are capable of differentiating between types of cells and, consequently, of poisoning some types more than others. But dont jump to the conclusion that they differentiate between cancer and non-cancer cells, killing only the cancer cells, because they do not.
The cellular poisons used in orthodox cancer therapy today cannot distinguish between cancer and non-cancer cells. They act instead to differentiate between cells that are fast-growing and those that are slow-growing or not growing at all. Cells that are actively dividing are the targets. Consequently, they kill, not only the cancer cells that are dividing, but also a multitude of normal cells all over the body that also are caught in the act of dividing.
Theoretically, those cancers that are dividing more rapidly than normal cells will be killed before the patient is, but it is nip and tuck all the way. In the case of a cancer that is dividing at the same rate or even slower than normal cells, there isnt even a theoretical chance of success.
In either event, poisoning the system is the objective of these drugs, and the resulting pain and illness often is a torment worse than the disease itself. The toxins catch the blood cells in the act of dividing and cause blood poisoning. The gastrointestinal system is thrown into convulsion causing nausea, diarrhea, loss of appetite, cramps, and progressive weakness. Hair cells are fast-growing, so the hair falls out during treatment. Reproductive organs are affected causing sterility. The brain becomes fatigued. Eyesight and hearing are impaired. Every conceivable function is disrupted with such agony for the patient that many of them elect to die of the cancer rather than to continue treatment.
It is ironic that the personnel who administer these drugs to cancer patients take great precautions to be sure they themselves are not exposed to them. The Handbook of Cancer Chemotherapy, a standard reference for medical personnel, offers this warning:
The potential risks involved in handling cytotoxic agents have become a concern for health care workers. The literature reports various symptoms such as eye, membrane, and skin irritation, as well as dizziness, nausea, and headache experienced by health care workers not using safe handling precautions. In addition, increased concerns regarding the mutagenesis and teratogenesis [deformed babies] continue to be investigated. Many chemotherapy agents, the alkylating agents in particular, are known to be carcinogenic [cancer -causing] in therapeutic doses. (Roland T. Skeel, M.D., and Neil A. Lachant, M.D., Handbook of Cancer Chemotherapy; Fourth Edition (New York: Little, Brown and Company, 1995), p.677.)
Chemo is Handled Like a Deadly Poison
Because these drugs are so dangerous, the Chemotherapy Handbook lists sixteen OSHA safety procedures for medical personnel who work around them. They include wearing disposable masks and gowns, eye goggles, and double latex gloves. The procedure for disposing needles and other equipment used with these drugs is regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency under the category of "hazardous waste." Yet, these same substances are injected directly into the bloodstream of hapless cancer patients supposedly to cure their cancer!
Most of these drugs are described as radiomimetic, which means they mimic or produce the same effect as radiation. Consequently, they also suppress the immune system, and that is one of the reasons they help spread the cancer to other areas. But whereas X-rays usually are directed at only one or two locations, these chemicals do their deadly work on every cell in the body As Dr. John Richardson has pointed out:
Both radiation therapy and attempts to "poison out" result in a profound hostile in-imunosuppression that greatly increases the susceptibility to metastasis. How irrational it would be to attempt to treat cancer immunologically and/or physiologically, and at the same time administer immunosuppressants in the form of radiation of any kind, methotrexate, 5-FU, Cytoxin, or similarly useless and dangerous general cellular poisons. All of these modalities, as we know, have been used to depress the rejection phenomena associated with organ transplantation. The entire physiological objective in rational cancer therapy is to increase the rejection phenomena. (Open letter to interested doctors, Nov., 1972; Griffin, Private Papers, op. cit.)
The view that toxic "anti-cancer" drugs usually accomplish just the opposite of their intent is not restricted to the advocates of Laetrile. It is a fact of life (or shall we say death?) that has become widely acknowledged even by those who use these drugs. Dr. John Trelford, for instance, of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Ohio State University Hospital has said:
At the present time, chemotherapy of gynecological tumors does not appear to have increased life expectancy except in sporadic cases.... The problem of blind chemotherapy means not only a loss of the effect of the drugs, but also a lowering of the patients resistance to the cancer cells owing to the toxicity of these agents. ("A Discussion of the Results of Chemotherapylogical Cancer and the Hosts Immune Response," Sixth National Cancer Conference proceedings, op. cit.)
Dr. Trelford is not alone in his observation. A report from the Southern Research Institute, dated April 13, 1972, based upon research conducted for the National Cancer Institute, indicated that most of the accepted drugs in the American Cancer Societys "proven cure~~ category produced cancer in laboratory animals that previously had been healthy! (NCI research contract PH-43-68-.998. Information contained in letter from Dean Burk to Congressman Lou Frey, Jr., May 30,1972; Griffin, Private Papers, op. cit., p. 5.)
In a courageous letter to Dr. Frank Rauscher, his boss at the National Cancer Institute, Dr. Dean Burk condemned the Institutes policy of continuing to endorse these drugs when everyone knew that they caused cancer. He argued:
Ironically, virtually all of the chemotherapeutic anti-cancer agents now approved by the Food and Drug Administration for use or testing in human cancer patients are (1) highly or variously toxic at applied dosages; (2) markedly immunosuppressive, that is, destructive of the patients native resistance to a variety of diseases, including cancer; and (3) usually highly carcinogenic [cancer causing].... These now well established facts have been reported in numerous publications from the National Cancer Institute itself, as well as from throughout the United States and, indeed, the world. Furthermore, what has just been said of the FDA-approved anti-cancer chemotherapeutic drugs is true, though perhaps less conspicuously, of radiological and surgical treatments of human cancer....
In your answer to my discussion on March 19, you readily acknowledged that the FDA-approved anti-cancer drugs were indeed toxic, immunosuppressive, and carcinogenic, as indicated. But then, even in the face of the evidence, including your own White House statement of May 5, 1972, all pointing to the pitifully small effectiveness of such drugs, you went on to say quite paradoxically it seems to me, "I think the Cancer Chemotherapy program is one of the best program components that the NCI has ever had."... One may ask, parenthetically, surely this does not speak well of the "other program areas?"...
Frankly, I fail to follow you here. I submit that a program and series of the FDA-approved compounds that yield only 510% "effectiveness" can scarcely be described as "excellent, " the more so since it represents the total production of a thirty-year effort on the part of all of us in the cancer therapy field. (Letter to Frank Rauscher, dated April 20, 1973; Griffin, Private Papers, op. cit.)
Physicians Know that Chemo Doesn't Work
There is little evidence for long-term survival with chemotherapy. Here is just a sampling of the negative verdict handed down by physicians, many of whom still continue to prescribe it:
Dr. B. Fisher, writing in the September 1968 issue of Annals of Surgery, stated:
As a result of its severe toxicity and its lack of therapeutic effect, further use of 5-FU as an adjuvant to breast surgery in the regimen employed is unwarranted. ("Surgical Adjuvant Chemotherapy in Cancer of the Breast: Results of A Decade of Cooperative Investigation," Annals of Surgery, 168, No.3, Sept., 1968.)
Dr. Saul A. Rosenberg, Associate Professor of Medicine and Radiology at Stanford University School of Medicine:
Worthwhile palliation is achieved in many patients. However, there will be the inevitable relapse of the malignant lymphoma, and, either because of drug resistance or drug intolerance, the disease will recur, requiring modifications of the chemotherapy program and eventually failure to control the disease process. ("The Indications for Chemotherapy in the Lymphomas," Sixth National Cancer Conference proceedings, op. cit.)
Dr. Charles Moertal of the Mayo Clinic:
Our most effective regimens are fraught with risks and side-effects and practical problems; and after this price is paid by all the patients we have treated, only a small fraction are rewarded with a transient period of usually incomplete tumor regressions....
Our accepted and traditional curative efforts, therefore, yield a failure rate of 85%.... Some patients with gastrointestinal cancer can have very long survival with no treatment whatsoever. (Speech made at the National Cancer Institute Clinical Center Auditorium, May 18, 1972.)
Dr. Robert D. Sullivan, Department of Cancer Research at the Lahey Clinic Foundation:
There has been an enormous undertaking of cancer research to develop anti-cancer drugs for use in the management of neoplastic diseases in man. However, progress has been slow, and no chemical agents capable of inducing a general curative effect on disseminated forms of cancer have yet been developed. ("Ambulatory Arterial Infusion in the Treatment of Primary and Secondary Skin Cancer," Sixth National Cancer Conference proceedings, op. cit.)
If it is true that Orthodox chemotherapy is (1) toxic, (2) immunosuppressant, (3) carcinogenic, and (4) futile, then why would doctors continue to use it? The answer is that they dont know what else to do. Patients usually are not scheduled into chemotherapy unless their condition seems so hopeless that the loss of life appears to be inevitable anyway. Some doctors refer to this stage, not as therapy, but experimentation, which, frankly, is a more honest description.
Another reason for using drugs in the treatment of cancer is that the doctor does not like to tell the patient there is no hope. In his own mind he knows there is none, but he also knows that the patient does not want to hear that and will seek another physician who will continue some kind of treatment, no matter how useless. So he solves the problem by continuing the treatment himself.
Note from Paul Winter: The reason the western medicine does not have good cancer treatments is well explained in the web site Cancer Research - a Super Fraud.
In his book The Wayward Cell, Cancer, Dr. Victor Richards made it clear that chemotherapy is used primarily just to keep the patient returning for treatment and to build his morale while he dies. But there is more! He said:
Nevertheless, chemotherapy serves an extremely valuable role in keeping patients oriented toward proper medical therapy, and prevents the feeling of being abandoned by the physician in patients with late and hopeless cancers. Judicious employment and screening of potentially useful drugs may also prevent the spread of cancer quackery. (Victor Richards, The Wayward Cell, Cancer; Its Origins, Nature, and Treatment, (Berkeley: The University of California Press, 1972), pp. 21516.)
Here, at last, is revealed the true goal of much of the so-called "educational" programs of orthodox medicinepsychologically to condition people not to try any other forms of therapy. That is why they perpetuate the myth of "proven cures."
The American Cancer Society, in its Unproven Methods of Cancer Management, stated:
When one realizes that 1,500,000 Americans are alive today because they went to their doctors in time, and that the proven treatments of radiation and surgery are responsible for these cures, he is less likely to take a chance with a questionable practitioner or an unproven treatment. (Unproven Methods of Cancer Management, op. cit., pp.17,18)
American Cancer Society (ACS) Statistics
In spite of the almost universal experience of physicians to the contrary, the American Cancer Society still prattles to the public that their statistics show a higher recovery rate for treated patients as compared to untreated patients. After all, if this were not the case, why on earth would anyone spend the money or undergo the pain and disfigurement associated with these orthodox treatments? But how can they get away with such outright lies?
The answer is that they are not really lyingjust bending the truth a little. In other words, they merely adjust the method of gathering and evaluating statistics so as to guarantee the desired results. In the words of Dr. Hardin Jones:
Evaluation of the clinical response of cancer to treatment by surgery and radiation, separately or in combination, leads to the following findings:
The evidence for greater survival of treated groups in comparison with untreated is biased by the method of defining the groups. All reported studies pick up cases at the time of origin of the disease and follow them to death or end of the study interval. If persons in the untreated or central group die at any time in the study interval, they are reported as deaths in the control group. In the treated group, however, deaths which occur before completion of the treatment are rejected from the data, since these patients do not then meet the criteria established by definition of the term "treated." The longer it takes for completion of the treatment, as in multiple step therapy, for example, the worse the error....
With this effect stripped out, the common malignancies show a remarkably similar rate of demise, whether treated or untreated. (Jones, "A Report on Cancer," op. cit.)
But there is far more to it than that. Such statistical error is significant, but it is doubtful if it could account for the American Cancer Societys favorite claim that "there are on record a million and a half people cured of cancer through the efforts of the medical profession and the American Cancer Society with the help of the FDA." (Letter from Mrs. Glenn E. Baker, Executive Director, Southern District, ACS, addressed to Mr. T.G. Kent, reprinted in Cancer News Journal, Jan./Feb., 1972, p.22.)
The answer lies in the fact that there are some forms of cancer, such as skin cancer, that respond very well to treatment. In fact, often they are arrested or disappear even without treatment. Seldom are they fatal. But they affect large numbers of people enough to change the statistical tabulations drastically. In the beginning, skin cancers were not included in the national tabulations. Also, in those days, very few people sought medical treatment for their skin disorders, preferring to treat them with home remedies, many of which, incidentally seem to have worked just as well as some of the more scientifically acceptable techniques today.
At any rate, as doctors became more plentiful, as people became more affluent and able to seek out professional medical help, and as the old-time remedies increasingly fell into disrepute, the number of reported skin cancers gradually increased until it is now listed by the ACS as a "major site." So, all they had to do to produce most of those million-and-a-half "cures," was to change their statistics to include skin cancerspresto-chan go!
As Dr. Hardin Jones revealed:
Beginning in 1940, through redefinition of terms, various questionable grades of malignancy were classed as cancer. After that date, the proportion of "cancer" cures having "normal" life expectancy increased rapidly, corresponding to the fraction of questionable diagnoses included. (Jones, "A Report on Cancer," op.cit.)
The American Cancer Society claims that cancer patients are now surviving longer, thanks to orthodox therapy. In truth, however, people are not living longer after they get cancer; they are living longer after they are diagnosed with cancer. The trick is that, with modern diagnostic techniques, it is possible to identify cancer at an earlier stage than before. So the time between diagnosis and death is longer, but the length of life itself has not been increased at all. (Robert N. Proctor, Cancer Wars: How Politics Shapes What We Know and Dont Know About Cancer (New York: Basic Books, 1995), p. 4.) This is merely another statistical deception.
When X-ray therapy is used, the bodys white blood cell count is reduced which leaves the patient susceptible to infections and other diseases as well. It is common for such patients to succumb to pneumonia, for instance, rather than cancer. And, as stated previously, that is what appears on the death certificateas well as in the statistics. As Dr. Richardson has observed:
I have seen patients who have been paralyzed by cobalt spine radiation, and after vitamin treatment their HCG test is faintly positive. We got their cancer, but the radiogenic manipulation is such that they cant walk.... Its the cobalt that will kill, not the cancer. (Letter from John Richardson, M.D., to G. Edward Griffin, dated Dec. 2, 1972; Griffin, Private Papers, op. cit.)
If the patient is strong enough or lucky enough to survive the radiation, then he still faces a closed door. As with all forms of currently popular treatments, once the cancer has metastasized to a second location, there is practically no chance that the patient will live. So, in addition to an almost zero survival value, radio therapy has the extra distinction of also spreading the very cancer it is supposed to combat.
One of the most publicized claims by The American Cancer Society is that early diagnosis and treatment increases the chance of survival. This is one of those slogans that drives millions of people into their doctors offices for that mystical experience called the annual checkup. "A check and a checkup" may be an effective stimulus for revenue to the cancer industry but its medical value is not as proven as the hype would suggest. As Dr. Hardin Jones stated emphatically:
In the matter of duration of malignant tumors before treatment, no studies have established the much talked about relationship between early detection and favorable survival after treatment.... Serious attempts to relate prompt treatment with chance of cure have been unsuccessful. In some types of cancer, the opposite of the expect~d association of short duration of symptoms with a high chance of being "cured" has been observed. A long duration of symptoms before treatment in a few cancers of the breast and cervix is associated with longer than usual survival.... Neither the timing nor the extent of treatment of the true malignancies has appreciably altered the average course of the disease. The possibility exists that treatment makes the average situation worse. (Jones. "A Report on Cancer." op.cit)
In view of all this, it is exasperating to find spokesmen for orthodox medicine continually warning the public against using Laetrile on the grounds that it will prevent cancer patients from benefiting from "proven" cures. The pronouncement by Dr. Ralph Weilerstein of the California Department of Public Health cited at the opening of this chapter is typical. But Dr. Weilerstein is vulnerable on two points. First, it is very rare to find any patient seeking Laetrile therapy who hasnt already been subjected to the so-called "modern curative methods" of surgery and radiation. In fact, most of them have been pronounced hopeless after these methods have failed, and it is only then that these people turn to vitamin therapy as a last resort. So Dr. Weilerstein has set up a straw-man objection on that score. But, more important than that is the fact that the Weilersteinian treatments simply do not work.
Battling as a lone warrior within the enemy stronghold, Dr. Dean Burk of the National Cancer Institute repeatedly has laid it on the line. In a letter to his boss, Dr. Frank Rauscher, he said:
In spite of the foregoing evidence,.., officials of the American Cancer Society and even of the National Cancer Institute, have continued to set forth to the public that alzoct one in every four cancer cases is now "cured" or "controlled," but seldom if ever backed up with the requisite statistical or epidemiological support for such a statement to be scientifically meaningful, however effective for fund gathering. Such a statement is highly misleading, since it hides the fact that, with systemic or metastatic cancers, the actual rate of control in terms of the conventional five-year survival is scarcely more than one in twenty .(Letter from Dean Burk to Frank Rauscher, Griffin, Private Papers, op. cit., p3.)
One may well ask Dr. Weilerstein where are all the modem curative methods to which he, the California Cancer Advisory Council, and indeed so many administrators so glibly refer?... No, disseminated cancer, in its various forms and kinds remains, by and large, as "incurable" as at the time of the Kefauver Amendment ten years agoDr. Weilerstein or no Dr. Weilerstein, FDA or no FDA, ACS or no ACS, AMA or no AMA, NCI or no NCI. (Letter from Dean Burk to Congressman Frey; Griffin, Private Papers, op. cit., p5.)
The statistics of the ACS are fascinating to study. They constitute page after page of detailed tables and complex charts telling about percentages of cancer by location, sex, age, and geography But when it comes to hard numbers about their so-called "proven cures," there is nothing. The only "statistic" one can get is their unsupported statement: "One out of three patients is being saved today as against one out of five a generation ago." This may or may not be true, depending on ones definition of the word saved. But even if we do not challenge it, we must keep in mind that there also is a correspondingly larger gain in the number of those who are getting cancer. Why is that?
Here is the official explanation:
Major factors are the increasing age and size of the population. Science has conquered many diseases, and the average life span of Americans has been extended. Longer life brings man to the age in which cancer most often strikesfrom the fifth decade on.
All of which sounds plausibleuntil one examines the facts:
First, the increasing size of the population has nothing to do with it. The statistics of "one out of three" and "one out of five" are proportional rather than numerical. They represent ratios that apply regardless of the population size. They cannot explain the increasing cancer rate.
Second, the average life expectancy of the population has been extended less than three years between 1980 to 1996. That could not possibly account for the drastic increase of the cancer death rate within that time.
And third, increasing age need not be a factor, anyway as the cancer-free Hunzakuts and Abkhazians prove quite conclusively.
For a brief moment in 1986, the clouds of propaganda parted and a sun-ray of truth broke through into the medical media. The New England Journal of Medicine published a report by John C. Bailar III and Elaine M. Smith. Dr. Bailar was with the Department of Biostatistics at Harvard School of Public Health; Dr. Smith was with the University of Iowa Medical Center. Their report was brutal in its honesty:
Some measures of efforts to control cancer appear to show substantial progress, some show substantial losses, and some show little change. By making deliberate choices among these measures, one can convey any impression from overwhelming success against cancer to disaster.
Our choice for the single best measure of progress against cancer is the mortality rate for all forms of cancer combined, age adjusted to the U.S. 1980 standard. This measure removes the effects of changes in the size and age composition of the population, prevents the selective reporting of data to support particular views, minimizes the effects of changes in diagnostic criteria related to recent advances in screening and detection, and directly measures the outcome of greatest concerndeath....
Age-adjusted mortality rates have shown a slow and steady increase over several decades, and there is no evidence of a recent downward trend. In this clinical sense we are losing the war against cancer.... The main conclusion we draw is that some 35 years of intense effort focused on improving treatment must be judged a qualified failure. ("Progress Against Cancer?", New England Journal of Medicine, May 8, 1986, p. 1231.)
"Proven Cancer Cures"
It is clear that the American Cancer Societyor at least someone very high within itis trying to give the American people a good old-fashioned snow job. The truth of the matter isACS statistics notwithstandingorthodox medicine simply does not have "proven cancer cures," and what it does have is pitifully inadequate considering the prestige it enjoys, the money it collects, and the snobbish scorn it heaps upon those who do not wish to subscribe to its treatments.
The advocates of Laetrile therapy have always emphasized that there is no cure, as such, for cancer. Since it is essentially a deficiency disease, one can only speak of prevention or control but not cure.
Public Library reference volumes on cancer often contain bookmarks distributed by the American Cancer Society. One of these depicts an ace of spades along with the slogan: THE UNPROVEN CANCER CURE. DONT BET YOUR LIFE ON IT. On the back it says: "For more information on proven cancer cures, write or phone the American Cancer Society." In response, the author sent a letter to the ACS headquarters expressing surprise at the assertion that there is any cancer therapy successful enough to warrant being called a proven cure. This is the reply received:
To Mr. G. Edward Griffin:
Thank you for your note. There are proven curesif detected in timesurgery and/or radiation and, more and more, chemotherapy is playing its part. (Letter from Mabel Burnett dated Dec. 18, 1972; Griffin, Private Papers, op. cit.)
This, then, is the position of orthodox medicine. Therefore, let us take a look at the results and benefits of the so-called cures obtained through surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy.
Conventional cancer research is plagued with the same frustrations and self-induced failures as conventional cancer therapy. Almost all current research projects are preoccupied with the question of how to cure cancer rather than what is cancer. Consequently, the basic problem of cancer research today remains one of fundamental rather than applied science.
The 1926, Thirteenth Edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica says this of cancer theories:
The very number and variety of hypotheses show that none are established. Most of them attempt to explain the growth but not the origin of the disease.
When applied to orthodox medicine, that statement is just as true today as it was in 1926. As a result, researchers have come up with an ever-lengthening list of things that supposedly "cause" cancereverything from smog in the air to insecticides on our raw fruits and vegetables, to a multitude of obscure viruses. Not recognizing that all of these merely act as trigger mechanisms for the real causean enzyme and vitamin deficiencythey then run off in all directions at once trying to find a thousand separate cures," each designed specifically to filter out the smog, to eliminate the insecticide, to destroy the virus, and so. on. The more they research, the more "causes" they discover, and the more hopeless becomes their task.
In spite of this continuum of failure, almost daily we can read in our press encouraging stories about how we are on the very brink of a cancer breakthrough. On September 23, 1972, the Los Angeles Herald-Examiner even announced to the world in bold front-page headlines: CANCER CURE FOUND! And respected researchers from the nations most prestigious medical institutions parade routinely before television cameras telling us how their latest findings have, at last, brought the solution to the cancer puzzle within their grasp. We have been "on the verge of a great breakthrough" for decades!
The reason for this is simple. These men are the beneficiaries of research grants from the federal government, tax-exempt foundations, and the American Cancer Society. They must claim to be making encouraging progress or their funding will disappear. If they reported honestly that they have worked for over four decades, employed thousands of researchers, consumed millions of man-hours, and spent billions of dollars to produce nothing of consequencewell, one can imagine what would happen to the future funding of their research projects. The cancer-research pie now is reaching out to the multi-billion-dollar mark annually. The ones who get the biggest slice of that pie are the ones who claim to be "on the verge of a great breakthrough," for who would want to be responsible for cutting funds just when the cure was so close?
In the meantime, researchers are busying themselves, not in trying to understand what cancer is, but in finding a substance or a treatment to get rid of it. And it seems that, the more wild the theory, the better chance it has of getting federal money.
When research grants are reported in the press, they often carry headlines that tell the whole story:
SEA SQUIRTS HELP SUPPRESS MICE CANCER, (L.A. Times)
EXPERTS HUNT MYSTERIOUS CANCER. AGENT, (L.A. Times)
WAITING IN THE WINGS? (Medical World News)
This last headline perhaps needs expansion. The article began:
On an educated hunch that insects synthesize compounds that can inhibit cell growth, chemist George R. Pettit of the University of Arizona in Tempe has spent six years and some $100,000 extracting chemicals from a quarter of a million butterflies ... part of a National Cancer Institute program. To get his ... butterflies, Dr. Pettit enlisted the help of 500 collectors in Taiwan.
And so the search goes on butterfly wings, sea squirtseverything except the natural foods of man.
It is significant that the only time orthodox research produces useful information is when it is in conformity with the trophoblast thesis of cancer. Or, stated another way, there is nothing in the realm of solid scientific knowledge gained through recent research that does not conform to the trophoblast thesis of cancer. This is true of a wide range of research projects.
Comment By the Webmaster Paul Winter
Linus Pauling PhD (Two-time Nobel Prize winner) summed up cancer research better than anyone, "Everyone should know that most cancer research is largely a fraud and that the major cancer research organisations are derelict in their duties to the people who support them."
This web site has over 100 web pages, consider searching for a phrase without using quotes. If no links appear on the search results page, re-enter your search term in the box on the upper right of that page.