*******************************************************
For more information on Lung Cancer, visit http://www.oncologystat.com/cancer-types/lung-cancer.html
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. [Linus Pauling Ph.D. (1901-1994), two times Nobel Prize winner]
Chemotherapy is basically ineffective in the vast majority of cases in which it is given. [Ralph Moss, PhD, former Director of Information for Sloan Kettering Cancer Research Center]
Chemotherapy is ineffective in treating most cancers, the exceptions being acute lymphocytic leukemia, Hodgkin's disease, nonseminomatous testicular cancer, as well as a few very rare forms of cancer, including choriocarcinoma, Wilm's tumor, and retinoblastoma. [Dr. Ralph Moss in Questioning Chemotherapy]
Chemotherapy and radiation can increase the risk of developing a second cancer by up to 100 times, according to Dr. Samuel S. Epstein [Congressional Record, Sept 9,1987]
Testicular cancer has yielded to platinum containing drugs. It is extremely damaging to the body [impotence being one of many likely consequences), but it does lead to a very extended life for people with this problem. [Dr. Ralph Moss on Chemotherapy, Laetrile, Coley's Toxins, Burzynski, & Cancer Politics, Laura Lee radio show, 1994]
As a chemist trained to interpret data, it is incomprehensible to me that physicians can ignore the clear evidence that chemotherapy does much, much more harm than good. [Alan C Nixon, PhD, former president of the American Chemical Society]
Cancer researchers, medical journals, and the popular media all have contributed to a situation in which many people with common malignancies are being treated with drugs not known to be effective. [Dr. Martin Shapiro UCLA]
Except for two forms of cancer, chemotherapy does not cure. It tortures and may shorten life -- no one can tell from the available data. [Dr. Candace Pert, Georgetown University School of Medicine]
Despite the widespread use of chemotherapies, breast cancer mortality has not changed in the last 70 years. [Thomas Dao, MD NEJM Mar 1975 292 p 707]
Many medical oncologists recommend chemotherapy for virtually any tumor, with a hopefulness undiscouraged by almost invariable failure. [Albert Braverman MD 1991 Lancet 1991 337 p 901]
Most cancer patients in this country die of chemotherapy. Chemotherapy does not eliminate breast, colon, or lung cancers. This fact has been documented for over a decade, yet doctors still use chemotherapy for these tumors. [Allen Levin, MD UCSF The Healing of Cancer]
Question
"How in the world, Dr Moss, can chemotherapy be considered a standard cure, when it works for 2-4 [percent of cancer patients], and very specific ones ?
Answer
We are dealing with an industry. It is not supported by the facts. The way that it is done is this. The drugs are tested in test tubes, and they look for things that will kill cells. After you have found something that kills cells, cancer cells, cell lines which are very abnormal non-typical sort of growths, maybe a new life form almost, then you put it into animals. Then if it kills the cancers before it kills the animals, and shrinks the tumours, you consider you have an active agent. You then put it into people, and go through the 3 phases the FDA prescribes for this, and basically if you can shrink the tumour 50% or more for 28 days you have got the FDA's definition of an active drug. That is called a response rate, so you have a response. Quite a bit [different from a cure] because when you look to see if there is any life prolongation from taking this treatment what you find is all kinds of hocus pocus and song and dance about the disease free survival, and this and that. In the end there is no proof that chemotherapy in the vast majority of cases actually extends life, and this is the GREAT LIE about chemotherapy, that somehow there is a correlation between shrinking a tumour and extending the life of the patient. [Or that there is a correlation between looking at a cancer cell in a test tube and the tumour in someone's body.] What happens as you grow those cells in cell lines they become very weird. Hundreds and hundreds of generations later they don't even look like even normal human cancer cells. They are things that grow under glass, immortal cells, unlike ... normal cancer cells. So much cancer research is very questionable because it is based on this cell line research. [Ralph Moss, PhD, former Director of Information for Sloan Kettering Cancer Research Center]
CHEMOTHERAPY : AN UNPROVEN PROCEDURE
How can that be true of the main cancer treatment in the U.S.? Fact is, no solid scientific studies or clinical trials prove chemotherapy's effectiveness, except in a small percentage of very rare types of cancer. For solid tumors of adults, the vast majority of cancer, or anything that has metastasized, chemotherapy just doesn't work.
A German epidemiologist from the Heidelberg/Mannheim Tumor Clinic, Dr. Ulrich Abel has done a comprehensive review and analysis of every major study and clinical trial of chemotherapy ever done. His conclusions should be read by anyone who is about to embark on the Chemo Express. To make sure he had reviewed everything ever published on chemotherapy, Abel sent letters to over 350 medical centers around the world asking them to send him anything they had published on the subject. Abel researched thousands of articles : it is unlikely that anyone in the world knows more about chemotherapy than he.
The analysis took him several years, but the results are astounding: Abel found that the overall worldwide success rate of chemotherapy was "appalling" because there was simply no scientific evidence available anywhere that chemotherapy can "extend in any appreciable way the lives of patients suffering from the most common organic cancers." Abel emphasizes that chemotherapy rarely can improve the quality of life. He describes chemotherapy as "a scientific wasteland" and states that at least 80 percent of chemotherapy administered throughout the world is worthless, and is akin to the "emperor's new clothes" - neither doctor nor patient is willing to give up on chemotherapy even though there is no scientific evidence that it works.
When any chemotherapeutic drug is spilled in the hospital or anywhere en route, it is classified as a major biohazard, requiring the specialists to come and clean it up with their space-suits and all their strictly regulated protocols. Yet this same agent is going to be put into the human body and is expected to cure it of disease ? What's wrong with this picture ? [Tim O'Shea in TO THE CANCER PATIENT]
And since a picture says more than a thousand words, here is a reduced-size rendering of the burning and scarring resulting of chemotherapy fluid spilling onto the unprotected hand. Does this picture make one feel safer to have such an extremely aggressive toxic chemical administered within one’s body via intravenous injection ? Knowing that our outer skin is actually better protected against any impacts than our inner body ? That is also why nurses administering chemotherapy have to wear protective gloves and follow the most stringent security measures in case of any accidental spills of chemotherapy beyond 5 cc.
Chemo drugs are some of the most toxic substances ever designed to go into a human body, their effects are very serious, and are often the direct cause of death. Like the case of Jackie Onassis, who underwent chemo for one of the rare diseases in which it generally has some beneficial results : non-Hodgkins lymphoma. She went into the hospital on Friday and was dead by Tuesday. [Tim O'Shea in TO THE CANCER PATIENT]
PROSTATE CANCERis one of the worst areas of chemotherapy abuse, according to Norman Zinner, MD. He states : "Most men with prostate cancer will die from other illnesses never knowing they had the problem." Hormones have been used as therapy since the 1940s, with no overall improvement in survival. Early detection of prostate cancer has resulted in thousands of men being treated for a condition that would have been self-limiting. No figures are available for those who have died from the side effects of treatment when the condition would never have caused any problems or symptoms during the patient's entire lifetime. Some studies show rates as high as 40% in autopsies of men over 70 in which prostate cancer was discovered which the patient never knew about, and which was not the cause of death. (American Cancer Society, 1995).
There are no randomized clinical trials proving that chemotherapy for prostate cancer increases long term survival. Au contraire, a 1992 study published in JAMA demonstrated that there was no difference in 10 year survival rate between the men who did nothing at all and those who had treatment. (Johansson) [Tim O'Shea in TO THE CANCER PATIENT]
In a survey of 79 oncologists from McGill University Cancer Center in Canada, 64 said they would not consent to treatment with Cisplatin, a common chemotherapy drug, while 58 oncologists said they would reject all the current trials being carried out by their establishment. Why ? “The ineffectiveness of chemotherapy and its unacceptable degree of toxicity.” [Philip Day, Cancer : Why we’re still dying to know the Truth]
Drugs tend to worsen whatever they're supposed to cure, which sets up a vicious circle. [Dr. Dean Black in Health at the Crossroads]
THE BI-PHASIC EFFECT : WHY CHEMO DOESN'T WORK
Every time we put a drug in our body, two things happen :
1. what the drug initially does to the body....
2. how the body adapts to the drug....
Any example will do. Antibiotics ? First, the drug kills all bacteria in the body. Then the body responds by growing them back, often with the bad bacteria out of balance, which come back in more powerful, mutated forms. Steroids ? First, muscles are built because testosterone has been mimicked. Then the body responds by cutting production of natural testosterone, which eventually feminizes the athlete by shrinking the gonads... Obviously these are simplifications, but you get the idea. “Drugs tend to worsen whatever they're supposed to cure, which sets up a vicious circle.” [Dr. Dean Black in Health at the Crossroads]
The Bi-Phasic Effect is well-explained by Dean Black and many other researchers who were trying to figure out why tumors seemed to come back with such a vengeance after chemotherapy. Some original work was done by American Cancer Society researcher Robert Schimke in 1985, who discovered that the way cancer cells resist chemotherapy is to replicate even harder and faster. Chemo drugs are lethal; so the cancer cells are stimulated to try and survive any way they can, which means faster growth. In the presence of any toxin, cells will resist it to stay alive. The more they resist, the stronger they get. Black sees cancer itself is just an adaptation; a normal response to an abnormal poison. Chemotherapy simply provokes adaptation. This is why we all know people who have had chemotherapy and experienced temporary remission. But when the tumor came back, it did so with a vengeance, and the patient was quickly overwhelmed. Think about this the next time you hear an oncologist talk about "mopping up" with powerful chemo drugs just to be sure we "got it all." Or prescribing powerful chemotherapy for a "pre-cancerous" or even a benign situation. To understand the bi-phasic effect, one begins to realize that drugs are fighting the body. The whole military motif - medicine imposes its will upon the body, even though we have vastly incomplete information to be doing something that arrogant.
[Tim O'Shea in TO THE CANCER PATIENT]
In 1986, McGill Cancer Center scientists sent a questionnaire to 118 doctors who treated non-small-cell lung cancer. More than three quarters of them recruited patients and carried out trials of toxic drugs for lung cancer. They were asked to imagine that they themselves had cancer, and were asked which of six current trials they themselves would choose. Of the 79 respondents, 64 said they would not consent to be in a trial containing cisplatin, a common chemotherapy drug Fifty-eight found all the trials unacceptable. Their reasons ? The ineffectiveness of chemotherapy and its unacceptable degree of toxicity. Famed German biostatistician Ulrich Abel, PhD, also found in a similar 1989 study that "the personal views of many oncologists seem to be in striking contrast to communications intended for the public." [”Chemotherapy Report” seasilver.threadnet.com/Preventorium/chemo.htm]
Because of the problem of nausea and vomiting caused by cancer itself as well as many chemotherapy agents and/or radiation therapy, many cancer patients develop anorexia - the loss of appetite or desire to eat. This situation is not good at all because it can lead to a condition known as cancer "cachexia" - a wasting syndrome characterized by weakness and a noticeable continuous loss of weight, fat, and muscle. It is estimated that roughly 40% of cancer patients actually die of malnutrition rather than their disease itself. [www.doctormurray.com/articles/chemotherapy.htm]
If your friend touches chemotherapy, he's a goner. Chemotherapy expert Ernst Wynder, former professor at Sloan-Kettering Hospital and recipient of a medal from the American Cancer Association, in a warning to a friend of professor Gearin-Tosh who healed himself of one of the most lethal cancers known using natural means.
One of the most important things I have ever heard was said to me by an oncological nurse. She was a member of an adult college class I was taking in 1989. When she found out I'd been diagnosed with cancer [and] was entering into treatment for lymphoma, she took it upon herself to say to me, unbidden and unasked, "Elliot, YOU have GOT to TAKE CONTROL of YOUR OWN treatment, or THE DOCTORS WILL TURN YOU INTO A PIECE OF MEAT." Truer words were never spoken ! Because that nurse had thought it important enough to say that to me without my ever asking, I took what she said very much to heart, and I know her words saved me a great deal of grief ! [E. Yudenfriend who cured himself of lymphoma, considered incurable by mainstream medicine]
Why so much use of chemotherapy if it does so little good ? Well for one thing, drug companies provide huge economic incentives. In 1990, $3.53 billion was spent on chemotherapy. By 1994 that figure had more than doubled to $7.51 billion. This relentless increase in chemotherapy use was accompanied by a relentless increase in cancer deaths. [”Chemotherapy Report” - seasilver.threadnet.com/Preventorium/chemo.htm]
On Cancer Diagnosing
Most cancers are not found until autopsy. That's because they never caused any symptoms. For example 30 - 40 times as many cases of thyroid, pancreatic, and prostate cancer are found in autopsy than ever presented to the doctor. According to a study cited in top British medical journal Lancet 13 Feb 93, early screening often leads to unnecessary treatment: 33% of autopsies show prostate cancer but only 1% die from it. After age 75, half of males may have prostate cancer, but only 2% die from it. This means simply that the immune system can hold many problems in check, as long as it is not compromised by powerful procedures. Guess which system is the most important to you at this time, more than it's ever been before in your whole life. Right - the immune system. Guess which system suffers most from chemotherapy and radiation. Right again. So the one time in your life you most need it, your immune system will be weakened by those therapies. If you're one of the few cancer patients who's refused standard treatment from the get-go - good, but your immune system still needs all the help you can give it.
A 1992 study in Journal of the American Medical Association of 223 patients concluded that no treatment at all for prostate cancer actually was better than any standard chemotherapy, radiation or surgical procedure. (Johansson) [Tim O'Shea in TO THE CANCER PATIENT]
BIOPSY OF BREAST/PROSTATE
”I was contacted by a lady who successfully dealt with her breast cancer from 1994 to present. She refused all conventional medical procedures. Last year her conventional oncologist convinced her that she was a fool not to get a needle biopsy. This lady now has new tumors growing at each puncture site. Of course her oncologist now has detailed information to help decide which chemos to use for this now rapidly metastasizing cancer. I repeatedly make this same observation with prostate cancer. I rarely see distant metastasis until after a biopsy -- and then it rapidly goes everywhere including the bones.” [Dr. Vincent Gammill, Center for the Study of Natural Oncology (CSNO), Solana Beach, California (non profit)]
In 2002, a mammogram showed a tiny anomaly in my left breast. Then the nightmare began, starting with the process of diagnosis...I think we can take for granted that there cannot be true honesty from providers of conventional cancer treatment. After all, how many would accept these treatments if they had all the facts ? [L.P. who after experiencing the shock, trauma & disfigurement resulting from “quackery at its cruelest” considers conventional cancer treatment an “evil industry”]
Unexpected shocks can lead to cancer - brain metastasis wrongly diagnosed...[Dr] Hamer named the "foci" formed in the brain in response to shocks HHs ("Hamersche Herde"...). When the [unexpected shock] hits the organism, immediate cell alteration occurs in the place in the brain which handles the content of the shock, and this content is always subjective. For instance, if a woman gets unexpectedly shaken by finding out that her partner has been unfaithful, the discovery about her marital misfortune is just the objective event. The clue to understand how this will affect her physically, is to know her personal experience, her subjective interpretation of the conflict. How does she experience this shock ? There are several possibilities. If she experiences it as a threat to her "nest", the HH will occur in the lateral part of the cerebellum, and from there, modification signals are sent down to her breast. But she could as well experience it totally differently, such as a conflict of sexual frustration, and if so, the impact at the brain level will be the left peri-insular part of the brain, followed by modification of her cervix. There are yet other possibilities. In other words, the location of the HH in the brain may vary from person to person and from time to time, even if the event objectively seems to be the same. The soul-body's interpretation all depends on the organism's experience up til the event. This brain alteration can be photographed via computer-tomography (CT) and a fresh one looks like a dot with concentric rings surrounding it (like a target, or a picture of a water surface into which a pebble has been dropped), while one more progressed lacks rings, is larger and looks congested. ... radiologists have mistaken this phenomenon for a defect in the equipment or a "brain metastasis", the latter being very unfortunate because it has meant that lots of people have been forced to totally unnecessarily undergo dangerous brain operations. Certifications from CT manufacturers and careful studies of the brain cell formations finally established that the HHs fit neither interpretation, and that instead Hamer's explanation hit the nail on the head. [A. Stahel in My Interpretation of New Medicine: A Revolutionary Biological Paradigm]
It's not the results of the "bone scans" or "CTs" which are of crucial importance ... but whether the cancer can be gotten under control or not. While many of the test methods used by us physicians are certainly scientific, they say nothing about the patient's state of health. Dr. Budwig's approach is not a method of healing cancer but a technique which strengthens the body's own immune defence against cancerous cells. [Dr Armin Grunewald, MD, nephew of Dr. Budwig, who incorporates parts of her approach in his office - Compare “Modern Medicine Is Not A Science”]
After one recent survey two pathologists reported that after carrying out 400 post-mortem examinations they had found that in more than half the patients the wrong diagnosis had been made. This presumably also means that in more than half the patients the wrong treatment had been given. And since so many modern treatments are undeniably powerful it also presumably means that a large proportion of those patients died because of their treatment. The two pathologists reported that potentially treatable disease was missed in one in seven patients. They found that 65 out of 134 cases of pneumonia had gone unrecognised while out of 51 patients who had suffered heart attacks doctors had failed to diagnose the problem in 18 cases. [From Dr. Vernon Coleman’s article “Modern Medicine Is Not A Science”]
Review of Dr. H. Gilbert Welch’s book “Should I Be Tested for Cancer ? Maybe Not and Here's Why” (on the risks vs. benefits of cancer screening in healthy people) and Alternative Diagnostic/Screening Methods For Detection & Follow-Up of Cancer & Cancerous Tumors.
On Mammography
Mammogram interpretations are unreliable. According to an article in the Journal of the American Medical Association (May 26, 1993) one study revealed a false positive rate in the range of 20% to 63%. This suggests that huge numbers of women are unnecessarily going through the pain, expense, and anxiety of biopsies. [Michael Phillip Wright in THE EPIDEMIC OF UNNECESSARY MASTECTOMY : HOW NOT TO BE A VICTIM]
Our current estimate is that about 75% of the current annual incidence of breast cancer in the U.S. is being caused by earlier ionizing radiation, primarily from medical sources. [John W.Goffman,M.D.,Ph.D., Committee for Nuclear Responsibility, in Preventing Breast Cancer : The Story of a Major, Proven, Preventable Cause of This Disease - Compare Cancer Causes : Radiation]
Mammograms ... is one topic where the line between advertising and scientific proof has become very blurred. As far back as 1976, the American Cancer Society itself and its government colleague the National Cancer Institute terminated the routine use of mammography for women under the age of 50 because of its "detrimental" (carcinogenic) effects. More recently, a large study done in Canada on found that women who had routine mammograms before the age of 50 also had increased death rates from breast cancer by 36%. (Miller) Lorraine Day [MD, who cured herself naturally from breast cancer] notes the same findings in her video presentation "Cancer Doesn't Scare Me Any More." The reader is directed to these sources and should perhaps consider the opinion of other sources than those selling the procedure, before making a decision. John McDougall MD has made a thorough review of pertinent literature on mammograms. He points out that the $5-13 billion per year generated by mammograms controls the information that women get. Fear and incomplete data are the tools commonly used to persuade women to get routine mammograms. What is clear is that mammography cannot prevent breast cancer or even the spread of breast cancer. By the time a tumor is large enough to be detected by mammography, it has been there as long as 12 years! It is therefore ridiculous to advertise mammography as "early detection." The other unsupportable illusion is that mammograms prevent breast cancer, which they don't. On the contrary, the painful compression of breast tissue during the procedure itself can increase the possibility of metastasis by as much as 80%! Dr. McDougall notes that a between 10 and 17% of the time, breast cancer is a self-limiting non-life-threatening type called ductal carcinoma in situ. This harmless cancer can be made active by the compressive force of routine mammography.
Most extensive studies show no increased survival rate from routine screening mammograms. After reviewing all available literature in the world on the subject, noted researchers Drs. Wright and Mueller of the University of British Columbia recommended the withdrawal of public funding for mammography screening, because the "benefit achieved is marginal, and the harm caused is substantial." The harm they're referring to includes the constant worrying and emotional distress, as well as the tendency for unnecessary procedures and testing to be done based on results which have a false positive rate as high as 50%. (New York Times, 14 Dec 1997) [Tim O'Shea in TO THE CANCER PATIENT]
In 1993 Dr. Julian Whitaker, author of the subscription newsletter Health and Healing, pointed out that since 1986, the number of mammogram clinics in the U.S. has tripled. Big money has been invested in these clinics, and investors profit by scaring women about breast cancer so they will start having routine mammograms at an early age. Breast cancer scare stories frequently appear in daily newspapers.
[Michael Phillip Wright in THE EPIDEMIC OF UNNECESSARY MASTECTOMY : HOW NOT TO BE A VICTIM]
Over a period of 100 years, breast cancer treatment has evolved from no treatment to radical treatment and back again with more conservative management, without having affected mortality. [Dr. Edward Scanlon, professor at Northwestern U School of Medicine in Journal of the American Medical Association, Sept. 4, 1991]
As Alternative Medicine has maintained for years, mammograms do far more harm than good. Their ionizing radiation mutates cells, and the mechanical pressure can spread cells that are already malignant (as can biopsies). Mammogram interpretation is often wrong. In 1996, the journal Archives of Internal Medicine published results of a test of 108 radiologists throughout the United States. The test used a set of 79 mammograms where the diagnosis had been verified by subsequent biopsies, surgeries or other follow-up. The radiologists missed cancer in 21% of the films, thought 10% of the women with no breast disease had cancer and thought 42% of benign lesions were cancerous. Further, mammograms are not diagnostic and too frequently lead to unnecessary breast biopsies, which are an expensive, invasive surgical procedure that causes extreme anxiety, some pain and often physical harm to many women who do not have cancer. According to the 1998 edition of the Merck Manual, for every case of breast cancer diagnosed each year, from 5 to 10 women will needlessly undergo a painful breast biopsy. Statistically, this means that any woman who has annual mammograms for 10 years has at least a 50% chance of having at least one biopsy -- even if she never develops breast cancer. [www.AlternativeMedicine.com]
In 2002, a mammogram showed a tiny anomaly in my left breast. Then the nightmare began, starting with the process of diagnosis. I think we can take for granted that there cannot be true honesty from providers of conventional cancer treatment. After all, how many would accept these treatments if they had all the facts ?
[L.P. who after experiencing the shock, trauma & disfigurement resulting from “quackery at its cruelest” considers conventional cancer treatment an “evil industry”]
Unfortunately, many of your public health programs, and commercial statements through the various media, provide you with mass meditations of a most deplorable kind. I refer to those in which the specific symptoms of various diseases are given, in which the individual is further told to examine the body with those symptoms in mind. I also refer to those statements that just as unfortunately specify diseases for which the individual may experience no symptoms of an observable kind, but is cautioned that these disastrous physical events may be happening despite his or her feelings of good health. Here the generalized fears fostered by religious, scientific, and cultural beliefs are often given as blueprints of diseases in which a person can find a specific focus-the individual can say: `Of course, I feel listless, or panicky, or unsafe, since I have suchandsuch a disease.' The breast cancer suggestions associated with self-examinations have caused more cancers than any treatments have cured. They involve intense meditation of the body, and adverse imagery that itself affects the bodily cells. Public health announcements about high blood pressure themselves raise the blood pressure of millions of television viewers.
Your current ideas of preventative medicine, therefore, generate the very kind of fear that causes disease. They all undermine the individual's sense of bodily security and increase stress, while offering the body a specific, detailed disease plan. But most of all, they operate to increase the individual sense of alienation from the body, and to promote a sense of powerlessness and duality. Your "medical commercials" are equally disease promoting. Many, meaning to offer you relief through a product, instead actually promote the condition through suggestion, thereby generating a need for the product itself. [Seth in The Individual And Nature of Mass Events]
On Cancer Business
Chemotherapy is an incredibly lucrative business for doctors, hospitals, and pharmaceutical companies…..The medical establishment wants everyone to follow the same exact protocol. They don’t want to see the chemotherapy industry go under, and that’s the number one obstacle to any progress in oncology. [Dr Warner, M.D.]
CHEMOTHERAPY : AN UNPROVEN PROCEDURE
In evaluating a therapeutic regimen, the only thing that really matters is death rate - will a treatment significantly extend a patient's life. I'm not talking about life as a vegetable, but the natural healthy independent lifespan of a human being.
Media stories and most articles in medical journals go to great lengths to hide the underlying numbers of people dying from cancer, by talking about other issues. In Questioning Chemotherapy, Dr. Ralph Moss talks about several of the ways they do it:
Response rate is a favorite. If a dying patient's condition changes even for a week or a month, especially if the tumor shrinks temporarily, the patient is listed as having "responded to" chemotherapy. No joke! The fact that the tumor comes back stronger soon after chemo is stopped, is not figured into the equation. The fact that the patient has to endure horrific side effects in order to temporarily shrink the tumor is not considered. That fact that the patient soon dies is not figured into the equation. The idea is to sell, sell, and sell. Sell chemotherapy. Also in the media we find the loud successes chemotherapy has had on certain rare types of cancer, like childhood leukemia, and Hodgkin's lymphoma. But for the vast majority of cancer cases, chemo is a bust. Worse yet, a toxic one. Even with Hodgkins, one of chemo's much-trumpeted triumphs, the cure is frequently a success, but the patient dies. He just doesn't die of Hodgkins disease, that's all. In the 1994 Journal of the National Cancer Institute, they published a 47-year study of more than 10,000 patients with Hodgkins lymphoma, who were treated with chemotherapy. Even though there was success with the Hodgkins itself, these patients encountered an incidence of leukemia that was six times the normal rate. This is a very common type of reported success within the cancer industry - again, the life of the patient is not taken into account. In evaluating any treatment, there must be a benefits/risks analysis. Due to gigantic economic pressures, such evaluation has been systematically put aside in the U.S. chemotherapy industry. [Tim O'Shea in TO THE CANCER PATIENT]
It’s difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it. [Upton Sinclair]
FDA drug approval : eye opening behind-the-scenes report on FDA advisers‘ industry ties. More than half of the experts hired to advise the government on the safety and effectiveness of medicine have financial relationships with the pharmaceutical companies that will be helped or hurt by their decisions, a USA TODAY study found...The experts are supposed to be independent, but ... 54% of the time, they have a direct financial interest in the drug or topic they are asked to evaluate. Federal law generally prohibits the FDA from using experts with financial conflicts of interest, but the FDA has waived the restriction more than 800 times since 1998. The expert panel's "consumer representative," whose assignment is to defend consumers' interests, had the most extensive financial relationship with Johnson & Johnson. In recent years, the FDA has followed every advisory committee recommendation to approve or reject a medicine - except once... The federal agency is forbidden from using experts with financial conflicts unless a waiver is granted, usually on the grounds that the experts' value outweighs the seriousness of the conflict. The FDA grants these waivers routinely...Many financial conflicts are considered too small to require disclosure or a waiver and were not counted in USA TODAY's study. For example, a committee member can be paid up to $50,000 a year by a drug company without any financial conflict being disclosed if the work was on a topic other than what the committee is evaluating...Financial conflicts are so common that eight of 10 members who evaluated the drug Aggrastat, made by Merck, had conflicts of interest. [Dennis Cauchon in USA TODAY September 25, 2000, found at mercola.com/2000/oct/1/fda_drug_approvals.htm]
I have the answer to cancer, but American doctors won't listen. They come here and observe my methods and are impressed. Then they want to make a special deal so they can take it home and make a lot of money. I won't do it, so I'm blackballed in every country. [Dr. Johanna Budwig]
The field of U.S. cancer care is organized around a medical monopoly that ensures a continuous flow of money to the pharmaceutical companies, medical technology firms, research institutes, and government agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and quasi-public organizations such as the American Cancer Society (ACS). [Ralph Moss, Ph.D., quoted by John Diamond, M.D., & Lee Cowden, M.D. in Alternative Medicine: The Definitive Guide to Cancer]
Conventional cancer treatment is big money. You have to understand that cancer is 1/9th of the overall health budget in the United States. The last figures I have seen from the American Cancer Society of money spent on cancer indirectly or directly at 107 Billion dollars. Cancer : we are talking about well over a million [new] cases a year, not counting skin cancer which probably equals that. About 630,000 people die every year of cancer in the US, and it really is an epidemic disease. We have got a tremendous industry. Every one of those people who is getting cancer and dying of it is going to be treated, and these treatments are extremely expensive. Chemo is tens of thousands, sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars. A bone marrow transplantation which is basically another way of giving chemotherapy or radiation can run to about 150,000 dollars per person, and is almost never effective. It kills about 25%.. Why carry on doing it ? Because of the money, which is tremendous. If you look at the board of directors of MSK [Memorial Sloane Kettering] you will find that the drug industry has a dominant position on that board. One company in particular, Bristol Myers, which produces between 40-50 % of all the chemotherapy in the world, and they have top positions at MSK hospital. Doesn't that constitute a serious conflict of interest ? They are selling their own drugs to that particular hospital but they have written into the by-laws of the centre that it does not constitute a conflict of interest to sell their company drugs to the centre. They get around it by not taking a salary. They are not paid, they are volunteers. Look what happens. You have a man like Benno Schmidt, who was first head of the president's cancer panel under Nixon, then becomes head of MSK. He then goes on using the knowledge he gained at MSK to set up his own drug company to make tens of millions of dollars. [Another revolving door.] You bet, and a big one. We have had 50 years of American Cancer Society (ACS) brainwashing on the question of cancer, so most people out there believe we are making progress in the war on cancer. We are not, we are losing the war. [Dr. Ralph Moss on Chemotherapy, Laetrile, Coley's Toxins, Burzynski, & Cancer Politics, Laura Lee radio show, 1994]
I suggest that all those who find it necessary to add other protocols or to add supplements to it have not even given the Budwig Protocol half a chance. They just don't look beyond the flaxoil/cottage cheese part. There is much more to it than that. It is a scientifically well thought out, all natural approach to health, that has a tremendous rate of success and track record... and it costs next to nothing. I think that if it were very expensive and much money could be made on it, it would be much more popular because it would be pushed by business. But as it stands, it doesn't lend itself to it. So you have to take it at practically no cost or go for some other high priced methods. [Wilhelm H on Dr. Johanna Budwig’s diet & protocol]
On Nature & Self-Healing
The human body is predisposed to heal itself and to exist as a healthy, thriving organism. We inhibit that process by ingesting unhealthy foods, fouling our inner environment with toxins, and relying upon poisonous substances to treat disease conditions...It's amazing, but true, that many of the most effective healing therapies (even for grave, life-threatening disease conditions) are simple things that you can do for yourself at home. You simply have to educate yourself and take responsibility for your own health. [Ken Adachi in Forbidden Cures - Suppressed 'Alternative' Therapies]
Nature alone cures ! All that anyone can do is to assist her efforts, and permit her to repair the damage. [Dr. Hereward Carrington in "Fasting for Health and Long Life"]
It's supposed to be a secret, but I'll tell you anyway. We doctors do nothing. We only help and encourage the doctor within. [Albert Schweitzer, M.D. - who successfully used the Gerson Juice Therapy on himself to overcome major physical problems]
The proper way to study disease is to study health and every influence favorable or not to its continuance.The fastest way to restore wellness is to stop putting into the body the things that have caused the physical problem to develop in the first place, and then give the body the nutrients it needs to repair and rebuild itself. The body is self-healing when the infraction is stopped and proper nutrients provided. [Shirley Lipschutz-Robinson who has ”achieved optimum health after a lifetime of suffering”]
The body has the inherent ability -the vitality-not only to heal itself and restore health, but also to ward off disease. Illness is not caused simply by an invasion of external agents or germs, but is a manifestation of the organism's attempt to defend and heal itself. Prevention Is the Best Cure. Health is a reflection of how we choose to live. [T.C. Fry]
Man makes his own diseases. And he is the one who can bring back health. He and his subconscious alone can cure. Doctors cannot cure. Only very rarely is surgical vandalism a dernier resort, unless bad treatment forces unnecessary emergencies. [J. H. Tilden, M. D., in Toxemia Explained The True Interpretation of the Cause of Disease - How To Cure Is An Obvious Sequence]
After practicing for over twenty years I now understand that the last thing most people want to hear is that their own habits, especially their eating patterns and food choices, are responsible for their disease and that their cure is to only be accomplished through dietary reform, which means unremittingly applied self-discipline. One of the hardest things to ask of a person is to change a habit. The reason that AMA doctors have most of the patients is they’re giving the patients exactly what they want, which is to be allowed to continue in their unconscious irresponsibility. [Dr Isabelle Moser with Steve Solomon. How And When To Be Your Own Doctor, 1996]
Since the time of Hippocrates it has been understood that symptoms of most diseases, other than degenerative disorders where irreversible organic damage has been sustained, represent the efforts of the body to eliminate toxins. Any substance, endogenous or exogenous, that cannot be utilized by the cells is recognized as toxic and eliminated. When elimination is impaired, toxins accumulate. The cells adapt to toxicosis, but when levels of toxin become intolerable the body initiates a detoxification process. Toxicosis is the true disease, and what we call disease is remedial action, a complex of symptoms caused by the vicarious elimination of toxins. Recovery from disease is not because of remedies but in spite of them. [Elnora van Winkle, Neurophysiologist; The Toxic Mind]
The bottom line is this : The human body "WILL HEAL". If we get out of our own way and allow it, it heals itself. It is our basic nature. Anybody who tells you other than that is trying to sell you something. No matter what you have been told. Don't give up on yourself and don't buy into the lines like .. oh well you've had a good life'... 'at your age'... and the worst of all ...'there's nothing further I can do, I suggest you finalize your affairs'... How dare anyone tell you to give up! So much in society combines to convince us of the propaganda that some things never get better. It's up to you ...do you want to get better ? Make things better ? It is human nature to make things better, evolve and grow. All I do is teach people how to heal themselves and I give them a kick start so to speak, in order to do so. [Shé D'Montford, Shambhallah, Australia]
YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE WHO EVER HEALS YOURSELF You heal for two reasons. One, you believe you deserve to heal and that belief manifests as your desire to be healed. Two, your desire to be healed manifests as action on your part to get healed. So many people delay, deny, and diffuse their healing because, at bottom, they do not want to live. The desire for healing is truly the desire for living. You will only heal if you really want to live. [Ellen A Mogensen, Past & Now Forward Holistic Counseling]
If you imagine dire circumstances, ill health, or desperate loneliness, these will be automatically materialized, for these thoughts themselves bring about the conditions that will give them reality in physical terms. If you would have good health, then you must imagine this as vividly as in fear you imagine the opposite.
[The Seth Material]
Many people, without knowing it, have developed cancer and rid themselves of it. Appendixes removed by operations have grown back. These powers of the body are biologically quite achievable in practical terms, but only by a complete change of focus and belief." [Seth in The "Unknown" Reality]
Add Light / Cancer patients need LIGHT !
According to a scientific article in "Health & Diet Times" (June/July 1982 issue) written by Lee de Vries, MD, cancer cells self-destruct within minutes after exposure to strong intense light. What happens is that the cancerous PLANT cell changes its formaldehyde into a plant sugar molecule giving off oxygen-ozone in the process and it is this element combination of O2 and O3 which causes the disintegration of the cancer cell. If you can't get enough sunshine, make absolutely sure that you obtain enough of the essential fatty acids (LA and LNA) in the so that your organism can produce the important prostaglandins, the precursors of hormones. Take off your contact lenses and prescription glasses, throw away your ultra-violet blocking sunglasses and let the light of the sun enter your eyes. Get as much exposure to sunlight and fresh air as you possibly can and watch your tumors and cancers shrink away. Avoid "Daylight" and especially "pink" fluorescent lights. They render you aggressive and hostile. If you can't avoid artificial light, make it "full spectrum" light. Don't avoid the ultra-violet rays. Too little is just as bad as too much. At least, when you burn you feel it, when you don't get enough there is no telltale sign. Avoid extended exposure to television and computers. Turn the set somewhat diagonal so that most of the direct rays go right past you. Stay away as far as possible. Even at 15 feet you still have ample exposure ! Stray radiation makes you fatigued, hyperactive and depressed all at the same time. [Dr. Jürgen Buche - More on the vital importance & healing power of natural full-spectrum light]
On healing crises : without succumbing to the temptation to interpret a healing crisis as a new disease. Remember that symptoms might worsen from time to time as the body develops new vigor to throw off the toxic burdens. Such cleansing often triggers cleansing reactions that can be rather unpleasant. [Dr. Jürgen Buche]
But from whence comes the healing ?...the healing comes from WITHIN. [Edgar Cayce]
There are in truth, no incurable conditions...that which exists is and was produced from a first cause, and may be met or counteracted, or changed, for the condition is the breaking of a law. [Edgar Cayce]
The American Medical Association style of medicine has a model that explains the causes of illness. It suggests that anyone who is sick is a victim. Either they were attacked by a "bad" organism--virus, bacteria, yeast, pollen, cancer cell, etc.--or they have a "bad" organ--liver, kidney, gall bladder, even brain. Or, the victim may also have been cursed by "bad" genes. In any case, the cause of the disease is not the person and the person is neither responsible for creating their own complaint nor capable of making it go away without medical intervention. This institutionalized irresponsibility seems useful for both parties to the illness, doctor and patient. The patient is not required to do anything about their complaint except pay (a lot) and obediently follow the instructions of the doctor, submitting unquestioningly to their drugs and surgeries. The physician then acquires a role of being considered vital to the survival of others and thus obtains great status, prestige, authority, and financial remuneration. Perhaps because the sick person is seen to have been victimized, and it is logically impossible to consider a victimizer as anything but something evil, the physician's cure is often violent, confrontational. Powerful poisons are used to rejigger body chemistry or to arrest the multiplication of disease bacteria or to suppress symptoms; if it is possible to sustain life without them, "bad," poorly-functioning organs are cut out. Hygienists usually inform the patient quite clearly and directly that the practitioner has no ability to heal them or cure their condition and that no doctor of any type actually is able to heal. Only the body can heal itself, something it is eager and usually very able to do if only given the chance. One pithy old saying among hygienists goes, "if the body can't heal itself, nothing can heal it." The primary job of the hygienic practitioner is to reeducate the patient by conducting them through their first natural healing process. If this is done well the sick person learns how to get out of their own body's way and permit its native healing power to manifest. Unless later the victim of severe traumatic injury, never again will that person need obscenely expensive medical procedures. Hygienists rarely make six figure incomes from regular, repeat business. This aspect of hygienic medicine makes it different than almost all the others, even most other holistic methods. Hygiene is the only system that does not interpose the assumed healing power of a doctor between the patient and wellness. When I was younger and less experienced I thought that the main reason traditional medical practice did not stress the body's own healing power and represented the doctor as a necessary intervention was for profit. But after practicing for over twenty years I now understand that the last thing most people want to hear is that their own habits, especially their eating patterns and food choices, are responsible for their disease and that their cure is to only be accomplished through dietary reform, which means unremittingly applied self-discipline. One of the hardest things to ask of a person is to change a habit. The reason that AMA doctors have most of the patients is they're giving the patients exactly what they want, which is to be allowed to continue in their unconscious irresponsibility. [Isabelle Moser MD in How And When To Be Your Own Doctor]
No comments:
Post a Comment