Ralph Moss on Chemotherapy, Laetrile, Coley's Toxins, Burzynski, & Cancer Politics

[Guest guest]

Ralph Moss on Chemotherapy, Laetrile,

Coley's Toxins, Burzynski, & Cancer Politics

Laura Lee radio show, 1994

 

 

 

LL: The medical establishment keeps telling us that there are only 3 ways to

treat cancer -- chemotherapy, radiation and surgery. Many people disagree and

among them is Dr Ralph Moss, author of a new book, Cancer Therapy. Dr Moss, can

we have a bit of background and why you became interested and decided to devote

your practice and research to cancer?

RM: Twenty years ago I was hired at Memorial Sloane Kettering (MSK) cancer

centre in New York as the science writer, later promoted to assistant director

of public affairs. Shortly after I went to work there I went to visit an elderly

Japanese scientist, Kanematsu Sugiura, who astonished me when he told me he was

working on Laetrile (B17), at the time it was the most controversial thing in

cancer, reputed to be a cure for cancer. We in public affairs were giving out

statements that Laetrile was worthless, it was quackery, and people should not

abandon proven therapies. I was astonished that our most distinguished scientist

would be bothering with something like this, and I said why are you doing this

if it does not work. He took down lab books and showed me that in fact Laetrile

is dramatically effective in stopping the spread of cancer. The animals were

genetically programmed to get breast cancer and about 80 - 90% of them normally

get spread of the cancer from the breast to the lungs which is a common route in

humans, also for how people die of breast cancer, and instead when they gave the

animals Laetrile by injection only 10-20% of them got lung metasteses. And these

facts were verified by many people, including the pathology department.

LL: So this is verified, that Laetrile can have this positive effect?

RM: We were finding this and yet we in public affairs were told to issue

statements to the exact opposite of what we were finding scientifically, and as

the years went by I got more rapped up in this thing and 3 years later I said

all this in my own press conference, and was fired the next day, " for failing to

carry out his most basic job responsibility " -- ie to lie to the public what

goes on in cancer research

LL: How can these people justify this in their own minds?

RM: Basically the attitude was best expressed by Lewis Thomas, the president of

the centre, who told my boss, as he would not see me, " I am not going to die on

the barricades for Laetrile. It is not a cure, it is only a palliative, (meaning

it relieves pain and stops the spread of cancer), if it were a cure it might be

a different story, but I am not going to give up my career, to die on the

barricades " . That's how they justified it in their own minds. I could not do

that, nor could Dr Sugiura, who never renounced the results of his own studies,

despite the fact they put enormous pressure on him to do so.

LL: Are we practicing science here, or medicine, or politics?

RM: Politics. Political science as we say!

LL: You were mentioning that patients hear cure rate when something very

different is being talked about. And we can go into the poor statistics for the

standard modalities. They are not that effective, which is why everyone is

looking for an alternative.

RM: When I was at MSK a lot of very weird things started to happen to me, there

was this cognitive distance between what I was told, and was writing about

treatment, especially chemotherapy, and what I was seeing with my own eyes. One

time I heard the head of the intensive care unit give a talk in which he bragged

about how he had one of the lowest mortality rates in his unit. I went out to

lunch with him, where he became a bit inebriated, and told me how he managed to

get those statistics -- by wheeling the dying patients out into the corridor

where they died and didn't sully our departments record.

LL: Lets skew those statistics any way that looks good to us.

RM: Another time I went to interview a breast surgeon, and he had a lamp in the

shape of a women's breast on his desk. I couldn't even get out a single

interview question I was so astounded by this insensivity, and here women were

flocking in to have their breasts removed by this guy, and I thought...I didn't

have any idea what was wrong but it was that twilight zone of knowing, feeling

that something was definitely wrong but not knowing what it was. It was only

when I had the enforced leisure from being fired that I was able to really look

into it.

LL: It is interesting how many establishment doctors start out, in many cases to

disprove the efficacy of alternative therapies and become advocates of

alternative therapies. I don't hear many stories of the other way round.

RM: No, it is not likely. So, I started to look into the whole question of

chemotherapy in particular, that is the cutting edge of orthodox treatment and I

have now completed a report -- Chemotherapy, How, When, and Why. With emphasis

on the why. Although we do give some information for those who are taking

chemotherapy on what they can take to decrease the side effects. Basically it is

a very critical and comprehensive look, for we deal with about 60 different

types of cancer, and all of the FDA approved anti cancer drugs. The bottom line

is for a few kinds of cancer chemo is a life extending procedure -- Hodgkin's

disease, Acute Lymphocytic Leukemia, Testicular cancer, and Choriocarcinoma.

Testicular cancer has yielded to platinum containing drugs.

LL: It probably makes you impotent

RM: It does more than that. It is extremely damaging to the body, but it does

lead to a very extended life for people with this problem. An interesting thing

is that platinum is the old homoeopathic drug for problems of the testicles or

the ovaries, and Hahnemann proved that on himself 180 years ago, but Allopathic

medicine takes this basic idea, without giving credit of course, ups the dose by

the billions because they can't conceive of small doses having significant

biological effect, and consequently put in massive amounts of homoeopathic

medicines and cause tremendous toxicity and other problems, second cancers down

the road and so forth.

Outside those 4 or 5 treatments for which chemotherapy is effective there are a

few where there is very moderate effectiveness in terms of life extension --

lung cancer and ovarian cancer with a possibility of colon cancer.

LL: When you look at the statistics chemotherapy is a standard treatment for all

types of cancer generally speaking.

RM: Yes, it has become.

LL: However, when you really look at the statistics, you were saying, only a few

respond.

RM: Yes, 2-4%.

LL: How in the world, Dr Moss, can it be considered a standard cure, when it

works for 2-4, and very specific ones?

RM: 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..

LL: Different from a cure?

RM: Quite a bit 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.

LL: Or that there is a correlation between looking at a cancer cell in a test

tube and the tumour in someone's body.

RM: Absolutely. 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 body cells or normal cancer cells. So much cancer research

is very questionable because it is based on this cell line research.

LL: Politics it seems is the word you must understand in order to understand

what is going on. It is not science, it is not medicine, it is politics..

RM: And 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.

LL: AIDS is a 4 billion dollar...

RM: Research, but you can't come compare AIDS to cancer. Cancer we are talking

about well over a million cases a year, not counting skin cancer which probably

equals that.

LL: One million new cases discounting skin cancer?

RM: Right. 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%..

LL: Why carry on doing it?

RM: Because of the money, which is tremendous. If you look at the board of

directors of MSK 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.

LL: Doesn't that constitute a serious conflict of interest?

RM: 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.

LL: Another revolving door.

RM: 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. The statistics...

LL: 1.7% increase in terms of success rate a year, its nothing

RM: By the time we get to the 24 century we might have effective treatments,

Star Trek will be long gone by that time. It is not working, yet we have had

this infrastructure, the cancer establishment, imposed over this country for the

last 50 years. It is a fund raising machine. The ACS takes in 400 million

dollars a year. What are they doing with it? Where are the treatments? Where are

the cures? Where is the good research? They are way way way out, far, drifting

out to sea in terms of anything approaching human cancer. We have to

re-orientate ourselves around the actual patient in front of you. The only thing

that matters in cancer or any other disease.

Instead we have this very abstract, academic, cruel, inhuman system which is now

going to be forced down our throats by government decree.

LL: I am told the tobacco industry tries to influence the boards of directors of

some of these cancer hospitals.

RM: At MSK in New York we had two top executives of Philip Morris and one of

Nabisco on the board. You will not find much research being done on tobacco at

MSK. They are not interested in tobacco, that is old hat, they are interested in

P53 and other kind of weird genes that they find in their petri dishes. At the

Tish hospital at NYU (New York University), named after the Tish family that is

are chairman of the board. They own the Laura lard [sic] tobacco company, so

they giveth and taketh away. They are going to give you cancer and then they

will " cure " you of cancer, although they can't cure you. They will give you 3

months extra survival with vicious chemotherapy and call that a cure.

LL: I'd rather die gracefully in my sleep.

RM: You bet. You better not smoke and then most of the lung cancer won't happen,

but that is one example of how the tobacco industry has infiltrated the medical

establishment. The bigger thing is the industrial interests. If you look at the

board of MSK you will find the who's who of the petro-chemical industry. Why are

they there? Again, very little research is done on the effect of chemicals in

causing cancer. We know that is probably one of the main things that causes

cancer -- petro-chemical pollution. But that is denied. Of course it's denied,

because the people who are paying the bill and directing cancer research have a

vested interest in keeping the scientists away from that area, and keeping them

focused on DRUG cures, things that can be patented, marketed and so forth, and

the FDA is in total collusion in this. They have set up a system where it costs

hundreds of millions of dollars to develop a new drug in the US. Well, right

there you know you are dealing with a monopoly situation.

LL: You can't be a small company and afford those research bills.

RM: You can't get in. It is a poker game where the ante is a 100 million

dollars.

LL: Don't we have anti-trust laws?

RM: We are supposed to, and I have gone to people in the anti-trust division of

the justice department. Their attitude is show us the smoking gun, in other

words we want to see the conspiracy. Well I don't have access to the yachts off

shore..

LL: You can see it. You have big business looking at cancer as a potential

growth industry.

RM: You can come up with any results you want. You can buy the scientists to do

that research. There are hired hands out there to attack any non-toxic treatment

that you want to attack, and come up with some phoney results, give people

synthetic vitamins with carcinogens, and that proves that vitamins cause cancer

instead of curing cancer. You name it. If you have got the money you can buy the

minority of scientists who are corrupt, but they are out there.

Basically most people know how the data on the breast cancer study at the

National Cancer Institute was fudged. The question of wether lumpectomy was as

good as mastectomy is now in somewhat doubt, because of the fake data that was

submitted to the national surgical adjuvent and bowel project run out of the

University of Pittsburg. This kind of corruption and fakery, and abuse of the

public has been going on as long as the war on cancer has been going on. The

fact is that all of the studies that have been supervised by the National Cancer

Institute should now be re-examined by congressional committees to see wether or

not there is real corruption in all of them.

LL: If there was an even playing field some of the alternative therapies would

shine.

RM: The Japanese are not afraid to look at things that are non-toxic. Here we

will look at natural things as long as they are more toxic than chemotherapy. We

don't want any competition. It would be unfair competition to have a less toxic

drug than chemotherapy because everyone would then flock to the less toxic drug.

LL: What is really sick is the industry leaders value their bottom line more

than the well being and life of people.

RM: Yes, because we have set up a situation where it costs hundreds of millions

of dollars for a new drug. Once you have got a situation like that you have got

to have a patent on the drug.

LL: We know that natural substances cannot be patented.

RM: If you want to change it, you change the law that establishes the need for

double blind clinical studies in drugs. You eliminate the efficacy clause from

the Harris amendment to the food and drug act, which Harris himself didn't even

want. This was imposed by the FDA and the drug industry. This upped the ante and

made a regulatory barrier. Now instead of it taking 1 million dollars to

establish the safety of a drug, you now need 300 million dollars. So none of the

small inventors, or the people with good ideas can ever hope to possibly hope to

get their drugs approved. They put you in administrative limbo where the best

you ever hope to get is this backburner simmering kind of thing, and I know of a

number of good scientists who have got IND's (Investigative New Drug

Applications) to test drugs, but when you try to market the drug they will put

you out of business, and Dr. Burzynski is the prime example. Brilliant

scientist, wonderful results in cancer, validated by the NCI, and yet he is on

the verge of federal indictment.

RM: If there is one thing you should pick up from this show tonight it's this:

If you ever get into a situation where a doctor recommends chemotherapy to you

or your family, ask to see the studies that the chemotherapy actually extends

the life of the patient.

LL: With chemo you may be shortening your life, certainly be under discomfort,

certainly incurring huge costs. It can bankrupt you or your family. You have a

right to know

RM: What are the actual toxicity? Go to a library to get a physicians desk

reference, or my chemotherapy report. I am continuously amazed. I was doing some

research due to my consultations on AM L-- a type of Leukemia, and the treatment

is so intense and toxic that in the older group that this particular patient

fell into, 40% die from the toxicity of the treatment.

LL: 40% would have lived longer if they hadn't had the treatment.

RM: And the cure rate is miniscule, under 10%. It is terrible odds. In Las Vagas

you wouldn't gamble with those odds unless you were crazy. The doctors fudge the

statistics. They are confounding and confusing different issues, the response

rate, the cure rate, the one year survival rate and so forth. Many doctors don't

know any better. They are afraid. The widest prairies have electric fences and

they are afraid to wander too close to the edge of their own field to find out

what is on the other side because they know from the example of Dr. Jonathen

Wright or Burzynski that if you stray too far from the herd you are liable to

bump into one of those electric fences. So there is a kind of self censorship. I

have seen this a hundred times. You talk to oncologists and doctors, and they

are individually open-minded and interested but as an aggregate they will not

move until their leadership moves because that is a very dangerous thing for an

oncologist to do. They would stand out too much, and they can't afford to do

that as they all depend on referrals from everyone else. So the minute you get

branded as a " quack " -- it is a conformist world -- and in the professions the

peer pressure is what makes for success or failure. Nobody wants to alienate

their peers, so you don't stick your neck out or you will get your head chopped

off.

LL: Lop the tallest poppy. Where does good science happen?

RM: Dr Gavalo in Russia who gets 75% five year survival in most carcinomas.

Unbelievable. CG hormone. Trophoblastic cells. Cancer is similar to pregnancy.

Cancer looks like a pregnancy. Dr Lance...isolate the blocking factor...analised

proteins...anti tumour necrosis factor...blocking factors of tumour...we

dismount immune system when pregnant... remove blocking proteins...3 patients

with over 2 pounds of cancer...within 24 hours all dead...on autopsy they did

not have a single cancer cell...all gone in 48 hours...but kidneys could not

handle it...they did not know about detox...the word detox does not appear in

the main textbook on cancer or the main medical textbook...the word in medicine

refers to heroin addicts and getting them off heroin...they do not conceive that

their are such things as toxins created by a tumour...where do they think it all

goes?...it goes straight to the kidney, liver, lungs...Lentz learned to go

slower... surgery can reduce tumour load...this failure is more exciting than

most of the success I read about...it shows you how incredibly powerful the

immune system is...it is not just that people have failing immune systems...it

is primarily that the tumour can evade the immune system...it does not see the

tumour there...if you make it visible it will go in and wipe it out....the

Burton Clinic in the Bahamas does this...Lentz did learn (1986) 2 patients who

were terminal are still alive...in 1902 a man, Beard, discovered cancer is

trophoblast, wrong time wrong place............cancer is far too intelligent to

submit to the raid approach of Allopathic medicine

LL: Other research?

RM: Burzynski, only available in Texas. Some results are amazing, for example in

brain cancer. The NCI sent a team, finally, after we were asking them for 15

years, and validated the cases. I met one of the boys who was treated for a

tumour about the size of pear in his brain. Within one month the tumour was

gone, and it is 3 years down the road, cancer free. He has damage from the

radiation treatment he recieved prior to that, he lost some of his hearing In

non Hodgkinson lymphoma I have a friend who had stage 4, went through chemo,

radiation and bone barrow transplant. He failed the bone marrow transplantation.

More chemotherapy. Read my book and found out about Dr Burzynski, and its 5

years, and he is compleatly free of cancer... an amazing case.....he also took

the whole " chicken soup " of vitamins etc...why is this better than chemo?...it

is very low toxicity

LL: You are talking about not damaged immune systems but how the immune system

was fooled.

RM: Exactly, but you still have to have an immune system. Chemo decreases it.

LL: And you are going to die when some other germ comes along.

RM: Or another cancer comes along, which happens to about 10% of the people who

survive the chemotherapy, they develop a second cancer, and they will never cure

that one. It is almost impossible to cure.

Another treatment COLEYS TOXINS which is one of the ones that excites me the

most. This is not generally available though I do know of ways to get it in

different forms. It was invented here like many of our alternative treatments

and then they have to go abroad to be used. There is a Coley's hospital in

China. They can get it in China but not here. It was discovered at MSK in 1893

and the results...over a 1,000 people were treated with it. It is basically a

high fever treatment. Some guy rung a radio show I was on, he had a sarcoma that

was operated on, it spread, and his doctor sent him to Dr Coley. He was 13 at

the time and 95 now. This is 82 years. Sarcoma is an incurable disease. A blow

away treatment. In advanced terminal breast cancer they got compleat remissions

in 50% of the cases using this treatment.

LL: This is criminal.

RM: That is not saying what you would get if you used it in conjunction with

surgery, you may get a 100%

LL: It is criminal that these are not incorporated into the standard procedures.

RM: You bet, it is criminal. I have known about this and lived with it for 20

years. You know what? THEY know about it at Sloane Kettering. They even put

Coleys picture in their publicity material, as a pioneer of immunology, but they

would never use the treatment themselves. They want to develop DRUGS that can be

spun off like Tumour Necrosis Factor, like these other immunologically based

drug treatments, highly toxic, destructive of the immune system, incredibly

expensive.

LL: It's big business.

RM: Yes, he who pays the piper calls the tune, and the drug industry pays the

piper. Do you know what the MSK president makes?

LL: $400,000?

RM: That's chicken feed. The president of MSK makes 2 million dollars a year,

2.2 million.

Coleys toxins are bacteria that force the body to fever and kill them and the

cancer as well. Tumours are very poorly vascularised, so you disrupt their

ability to get nutrients and to get rid of wastes by raising the body

temperature.....this is really an effective treatment and it an OUTRAGEOUS crime

of the century that we at MSK were able to cure cancer a 100 years ago that they

can't cure today. This is a fraud being perpetrated on the public....

LL: Why isn't the New York Times writing about this?

RM: The chairman of the board of Bristol Myers, the main company producing

anti-cancer drugs, who also happens to be on the board of MSK, is also on the

board of the New York Times. Everybody's brother in law is an oncologist, or on

the board of somebody else's something or other, so it is a money making thing

for the establishment. A hundred and seven billion, with a B, dollars a year

business, and we are not going to get rid of it easily. The point is use your

vote....

LL: Or your mind

RM: Or your mind, what a novel idea.

LL: Lets work with it (cancer) rather than go out to stamp on it like a

cockroach.

RM: Chemotherapy is machismo practiced to the N'th degree. It is a war in which

you are the battleground, lucky you, I mean you have to treat your body better

than that. The folks that bring you the toxic chemicals that cause the cancer

are then kind enough to bring you toxic chemicals that allegedly.....

LL: We live in interesting times.

 

 

 

Gettingwell- / Vitamins, Herbs, Aminos, etc.

 

To , e-mail to: Gettingwell-

Or, go to our group site: Gettingwell

 

 

 

 

Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, and more