To learn how bad conventional medicine has gotten, read our Conventional Cancer Treatment page.
Expanded Table of Contents
Click on the link to go to the related warning:
PubMed - Why it is not likely to find papers on alternative cancer treatments in PubMed.
Quackwatch - Is Quackwatch honest?
Chemo Causes Metastasis Results of a 2004 study on Taxol the "Gold Standard" of chemo.
Chemo interferes with alternatives The effect of chemo on the outcome of an alternative.
Chlorinated Water - Avoid it.
New, "Hopeful" Treatments - How researchers keep grant money coming in even though their theory of cancer is wrong.
Doctors with Single Cures - There is no cancer treatment that works on everyone.
Alternative Cancer Clinics or CAM Most of these centers push conventional treatments and avoid real alternative cancer treatments.
Is Biopsy Safe? Do you want cancer cells floating around in your body?
Radiation and Mammograms "99.75 percent of the women screened are unlikely to benefit" this section was moved to the Prevention and Mammogram page.
Absurdity of Conventional Treatments Every year in the United States, more people die from the side effects of pharmaceutical drugs than die in car accidents, and cancer treatments are the worst of conventional treatments.
Blood Pressure Drugs Cause Breast Cancer Calcium-channel blocking blood pressure drugs multiply the risk of breast cancer.
When researching alternative cancer treatments many people turn to PubMed to find research on alternative cancer treatments. If a person discovers that there are none or very few research papers on PubMed for a specific alternative cancer treatment, they often think that the treatment can't be any good. This is a mistake.
The majority of research papers in PubMed are from peer-reviewed journals. That term should really be “peer approved” research papers. In other words some researchers in the cancer area must approve the research paper before the journal will accept the research paper. The problem is that most funding for cancer research comes from grant awarding organizations that are strongly influenced by pharmaceutical companies. Any researcher that approves a paper on an alternative cancer treatment is very likely to be ostracized by the grant awarding organizations. So there is much to lose when a researcher approves a paper on alternative cancer treatments and nothing to gain.
If you have read Quackwatch written by Stephen Barrett and suspect that alternative cancer treatments represent a fraud, consider reading this page: Quackwatch - Is the Fox Guarding the Chicken Coop?**
A good example of how Quackwatch operates is this Quackwatch statement:
"IPT (Insulin Potentiation Therapy) is based on the notion that intravenous insulin increases the effect of medications"
The basis of IPT is significantly different. IPT bonds medications to insulin. Since cancer cells have the strongest demand for insulin in the body, the medication goes primarily to cancer cells. Notice how the above Quackwatch statement makes it seem that a patient is merely given insulin with the medication. The difference is tremendous.
This Webmaster's Quackwatch Experience
My own experience with Stephen Barrett was as follows: in order to have him correct misstatements regarding the testing of Cancell, I mailed Stephen Barrett the NCI test results for Cancell. Despite the fact that I mailed these test results to him three times, he continued to claim that he never received them and that he was unable to view them on my web site. Go to the bottom of the printable page of Comments on the NCI Test Summary for Cancell* Can you see the test results?
Barrett Claims to be a Consumer Advocate
Paraphrased from "Is Stephen Barrett a Quack?"** by Ray Sahelian, M.D.**
You can read Quackwatch till you are fast asleep and you are not likely to ever read an article about inaccurate promotion or misleading marketing practices by the pharmaceutical industry. Why is this? Why has Barrett spent hardly any time pointing out the billions of dollars wasted each year by consumers on certain prescription and non-prescription pharmaceutical drugs that don't work? If he truly claims to be a true consumer advocate, isn't it his responsibility to make sure the big scams are addressed first before focusing on the smaller scams?
If you would like to read more about Quackwatch, go to Quackpot Watch or http://worldhealth.net/news/will_the_quackbusters_survive_2005.
Chemo Causes Metastasis
As reported at the 27th Annual San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, Dec 2004, (abstract 6014), German investigators from Friedrich-Schiller University in Jena, have shown that taxol (the "gold standard of chemo") causes a massive release of live cancer cells into circulation.
Such a release of cancer cells would result in extensive metastasis months or even years later, long after the chemo would be suspected as the cause of the spread of the cancer. This little known horror of conventional cancer treatment needs to be spread far and wide, but it is not even listed in the side effects of taxol.
Effect of Chemo on Alternative Treatments
Dr Ozell of Turkey documented a 70% success rate for his cancer patients using a water extract of the Nerium Oleander plant. However, patients who had chemotherapy or radiation only had a 30% success rate.
While taking any alternative cancer treatment, it is essential to avoid any chlorinated water. Most tap water is chlorinated and even some bottled water is chlorinated. It is best to contact the manufacturer to verify that there is no chlorine in their water.
"New, Hopeful" Treatments
Every few months, new treatments appear that, according to their developers, offer new hope for this or that cancer. This occurs because research centers that have something promising receive more funding. Read the first section of the Conventional Cancer Treatments* page.
Doctors with Single Cures
The problems with many doctors is that they tend to find what they consider to be the best treatment and use it on everyone. To understand why this is a poor treatment selection method, go to The Solution - Understand Treatment Selection* page.
Alternative Cancer Treatment Centers
A large number of cancer clinics or "centers" have appeared in the past few years that claim to offer complimentary and alternative medicine (CAM). I have investigated a number of these centers and found that they only offered the usual conventional cancer treatments plus the least effective alternative techniques such as low fat diets and visualization. When I asked them if they offer any of the well established alternative cancer treatments such as Cancell, Paw Paw, Cesium Chloride, Essiac tea, Hydrazine Sulfate, MGN-3, OPC's, or 714-x, the answer was "no" time after time.
A Few Exceptions
Some CAM clinics do have useful therapies such as hypothermia, but their main thrust usually remains toward conventional treatments for which they make much more money. If you want to pursue serious alternative cancer treatments, conventional doctors will not help you. Oncologists are extremely skilled at talking patients into conventional cancer treatments. Even if they knew about alternative cancer treatments, most states have had laws passed to make it a felony for a conventional doctor to even talk about alternative treatments.
Cancer patients are lead to believe that they should not waste time on alternative cancer treatments because their failure will allow the cancer to grow more. This reasoning is simply wrong. Back in the 1950's a simple no pill approach was developed that stopped tumor growth in 14 out of 15 terminal cancer patients who were not doing any other treatment. This approach depends on many diverse factors such as where you live, when you work... it is also very difficult if not impossible to set up on the road. The only way to set up such a plan is with a phone consultation*.
There are a few real alternative clinics in the US, however, they exist on the edge of persecution and they don't advertise like the CAM clinics. I can't write about them or call attention to them on a web site. Going to such a clinic as an out patient allows a patient to have all their at home support which means so much. If you email Paul Winter and include your location, I will see if there are any real alternative cancer clinics in your area.
See also Can Patients Make Treatment Decisions? *.
Is Biopsy Safe?
Quoted from a ten page report by Ralph Moss, Ph.D., Are Needle Biopsies Safe?
"A June 2004 report from the John Wayne Cancer Institute in California has rekindled a long-standing debate over whether or not needle biopsies are safe."
"This is a rigorous study, and it comes with an excellent pedigree."
"The study found that women who had had either kind of needle biopsy were fifty percent more likely to have cancer in their sentinel nodes than women who underwent the surgical removal of the whole tumor with excisional biopsy."
Safe Cancer Testing
This section has been moved to its own page:
John W. Gofman, M.D., Ph. D. Professor Emeritus, Molecular and Cell Biology University of California, Berkeley and perhaps the most experienced man on the planet regarding medical radiation performed a 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 X-rays (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.
Despite the yearly claims of great new cancer drugs*, the percentage of Americans who die each year from cancer has remained pretty much the same since 1970. Every year in the United States, more people die from the side effects of pharmaceutical drugs than die in car accidents. However, people have been so brainwashed by the media which portrays conventional Western medicine in glowing terms that it takes massive information to present an accurate picture of this widespread medical failure. To read the details, proceed to the Conventional Cancer Treatments* page.
Calcium-channel blocking blood pressure drugs such as Norvasc (amlodipine), Plendil (felodipine), DynaCirc (isradipine), Cardene (nicardipine), Procardia XL, Adalat (nifedipine), Cardizem, Dilacor, Tiazac, Diltia XL (diltiazem), Sular (Nisoldipine) Isoptin, Calan, Verelan, and Covera-HS (verapamil) have been found to cause double to triple the risk of breast cancer from the Whitehall II prospective cohort study," European Heart Journal 2013; epub ahead of print June 26.