Introduction to Alternative Cancer Treatments

[Guest guest]

http://www.life-enthusiast.com/index.php?Q1=Concerns & Q2=Cancer & Q3=Alternative_Ca\

re

 

 

Introduction to Alternative Cancer Treatments

Abstract

 

This article will explain why everyone, even those without cancer,

need to know the truth about natural cancer treatments, usually called

" alternative cancer treatments. " It will explain why alternative

cancer treatments are far superior to orthodox cancer treatments. It

will explain why the pharmaceutical industry is trying to destroy

alternative cancer treatments. It will explain why the Food and Drug

Administration (FDA), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the

American Medical Association (AMA), the American Cancer Society (ACS),

the media, quackwatch, and many other organizations, have joined the

pharmaceutical industry in their quest to destroy alternative

medicine. It will explain some of the sophisticated statistical tricks

used by organized medicine to make their treatments look far better

than they really are. It will explain why, when a new cure for cancer

is found, it is totally suppressed. And it will explain how, in the

past one hundred years, more people have died from the suppression of

truth about medicine, than have died in all of the wars, worldwide,

during the same period.

 

" There is not one, but many cures for cancer available. But they

are all being systematically suppressed by the ACS, the NCI and the

major oncology centres. They have too much of an interest in the

status quo. " Dr Robert Atkins, M.D.

 

This web site also has dozens of other articles about alternative

cancer treatments. It has a tutorial about how to put together your

own alternative cancer treatment. It has a checklist of how to verify

your alternative cancer treatment is strong enough to treat your

cancer. It has sample cancer treatment programs. It links to many

other alternative cancer web sites. And it has many detailed articles

about issues related to alternative cancer treatments.

The Four Parts of Any Truth

 

If you are married, there is a greater than 60% probability that

either you or your spouse (or both) is going to be diagnosed with

cancer in your lifetimes! That percentage keeps going up!

 

Perhaps, whether you have cancer or not, you wanted to know the truth

about whether alternative cancer treatments or orthodox cancer

treatments were more effective, safer, less painful, etc. If you

understood the process of finding the truth, you would go through the

four steps of the " truth table. "

 

1. Learn the good things about orthodox cancer treatments, from the

orthodox medicine supporters.

2. Learn the bad things about alternative cancer treatments, from

the orthodox medicine supporters.

 

and you would (this line represents the symbolic " fence " between

orthodox medicine and alternative medicine):

 

1. Learn the good things about alternative cancer treatments, from

the alternative medicine supporters.

2. Learn the bad things about orthodox cancer treatments, from the

alternative medicine supporters.

 

On one side of the " fence " are the people who represent orthodox

medicine, who will gladly tell you the good things about orthodox

medicine and the bad things about alternative medicine. On the other

side of the fence are the alternative medicine representatives.

 

If you were an expert on what the people on both sides of the fence

were saying (i.e. you were an expert in all four items in the truth

table), then you would be in a position to make an intelligent

decision about which side has the best treatments.

 

The problem is that when people have heard the good things about

orthodox medicine and the bad things about alternative medicine, they

think they are experts on both subjects!! But they are not experts in

either subject because they have only heard the arguments from one

side of the fence.

 

Thousands of times you have heard how wonderful orthodox doctors are

via: shows such as M*A*S*H, Marcus Welby, MD, other doctor and

hospital TV shows, news programs, magazines, advertisements, etc.

These things naturally transfer to you believing that orthodox cancer

treatments must also be wonderful (i.e. truth table #1). And you have

no doubt heard dozens of bad things about alternative cancer

treatments (truth table #2). Notice from the above table that both of

these items come from orthodox medicine supporters. In other words,

you have heard all of these things from the same side of the fence.

 

You have probably never heard anything bad about orthodox cancer

treatments (truth table #4), and in all likelihood you have never

heard anything good about alternative cancer treatments (truth table

#3). Why haven't you heard very much, if anything, from alternative

medicine supporters?

 

When you have only heard from the people on one side of the fence for

your entire life, you should wonder why!

 

" An educated person is one who has learned that information almost

always turns out to be at best incomplete and very often false,

misleading, fictitious, mendacious - just dead wrong. " Russell Wayne

Baker (1947 - ) American Journalist

 

Is what you hear in the media based on who has the most truth or is it

based on who has the most money?

 

To demonstrate just how one-sided your information has been, answer

these two questions. First, when was the last time you saw a dramatic

show on a major television network where the hero was an alternative

medicine practitioner who was making alternative cancer treatments

look safe and effective? Second, name 10 of the most effective

alternative cancer treatments?

 

What you are about to read will contradict everything you have heard

in your life. Your natural reaction at times will be disbelief. But if

you are willing to spend the next hour reading this article (i.e.

about truth table #3 and truth table #4), it could very well lead to a

journey that will save your life or the life of a loved one!

 

This is a public service website, so I have no financial interest in

your decision. However, after studying all four parts of the above

truth table for hundreds of hours, I am certain it will be in your

best interests to continue reading.

 

Before going on, let us first clarify a key point. Some readers

probably think that this article is about comparing:

 

1. Orthodox treatments, enhanced or complemented with alternative

treatments (called " complementary medicine " ), versus

2. Orthodox treatments without alternative treatments.

 

While this would be an interesting topic, it has nothing to do with

this article.

 

This article is about comparing:

 

1. Orthodox treatments without alternative treatments, versus,

2. Alternative treatments without orthodox treatments.

 

In other words, this article is about using alternative cancer

treatments, meaning the use of natural substances, instead of orthodox

treatments. Welcome to truth table #3 and truth table #4. You need to

start thinking about natural substances as a complete, stand-alone

treatment for cancer.

An Alternative Cancer Treatment Quiz

 

Let's find out what you know about alternative treatments:

 

Question #1: Dr. Ewan Cameron, and two-time Nobel Prize winner Linus

Pauling, did studies in Scotland (which were duplicated by studies in

Canada and Japan) comparing Vitamin C therapy to chemotherapy. Which

group of patients, the ones on vitamin C or chemotherapy, lived longer

on average, and by how much?

 

Question #2: An American alternative cancer treatment doctor treated

33,000 cancer patients, most of whom had been given up for dead by

orthodox medicine and had been sent home to die. What was his verified

cure rate?

 

Question #3: Fill in the blank: " In a review of 206 human studies,

[which food] consistently emerged as one of the top cancer-fighting

foods. "

 

Question #4: How many Nobel Prize discoveries (and when were they

awarded) did Dr. Johanna Budwig use to help her develop the Flaxseed

Oil (omega 3) / Cottage Cheese (sulphur proteins) cancer treatment?

 

Question #5: It is absurd to think that a person can be cured of

cancer simply by changing their diet. Only professionals can cure

cancer. True or false?

 

Let's answer these questions.

Question #1

 

Question #1: Dr. Ewan Cameron, and two-time Nobel Prize winner Linus

Pauling, did studies in Scotland (which were duplicated by studies in

Canada and Japan) comparing Vitamin C therapy to chemotherapy. Which

group of patients, the ones on vitamin C or chemotherapy, lived longer

on average, and by how much?

 

Answer: The vitamin C patients lived an average of six times longer

than the chemotherapy patients. I don't know why anyone would be

surprised at this result. Cancer in many cases is nothing but a

symptom of a weakened immunity system. Chemotherapy virtually destroys

an already weakened immunity system, and it is the immunity system

that deals with cancer on a normal basis. On the other hand, Vitamin C

helps build the immunity system. It makes sense that someone who has

had their immunity system built up would outlive someone who had their

immunity system destroyed.

Question #2

 

Question #2: An American alternative cancer treatment doctor treated

33,000 cancer patients, most of whom had been given up for dead by

orthodox medicine and had been sent home to die. What was his verified

cure rate?

 

Answer: Dr. William Donald Kelley, a dentist by training, had a 93%

cure rate. This cure rate was verified by a 5-year study by an

orthodox doctor. His technique is called " metabolic " therapy, and

guess what, it was designed to build the immunity system.

 

But what is of even more significance is the answer to this question:

" if we factor out all of his patients who went to orthodox doctors

before they went to Dr. Kelley, and only counted those who went to Dr.

Kelley first, what would his cure rate have been? "

 

If we assume that his cure rate for patients who went to him first was

as high as his cure rate for those of his patients who went to

orthodox medicine first, the answer would be that his cure rate would

be at least 93%, probably higher!

 

This is a logical conclusion for three reasons:

 

First, he used the identical treatment regardless of whether his

patient went to him first or orthodox medicine first, Second, for

those patients who went to orthodox medicine first, Dr. Kelley lost a

lot of time before he was able to start treating these patients. In

other words, he started their treatment after they were further along

with their cancer, and Third, those patients who went to orthodox

medicine first had their immunity systems severely compromised before

they went to Dr. Kelley, thus Dr. Kelley had to rebuild that portion

of their immunity system.

 

In other words, it is obvious that if 10,000 new cancer patients, who

had not had any orthodox treatments, went to Dr. Kelley first, his

overall cure rate for these people would be at least 93%, probably

higher! That is far, far higher than the patients who go to orthodox

medicine first.

 

His reward by orthodox medicine for his high cure rate was to be

thrown in jail. Kelley also had to move his treatment to Mexico.

Fortunately, he has written a book about his treatment: Cancer, Curing

The Incurable Without Surgery, Chemotherapy or Radiation and he

currently has a web site.

 

Because Dr. Kelley had such an incredibly high cure rate for cancer,

much, much higher than orthodox medicine, you might wonder why the

orthodox medical community does not study Dr. Kelley's treatment to

see if there are ways to improve it. In other words, why doesn't the

orthodox community use Dr. Kelley's treatment in order to obtain a

quick and immediate 93% or higher cure rate for new cancer patients,

then find ways to improve on it to get even higher cure rates?

Question #3

 

Question #3: Fill in the blank: " In a review of 206 human studies,

[which food] consistently emerged as one of the top cancer-fighting

foods. "

 

Answer: Here is the complete quote: " In a review of 206 human studies,

carrots consistently emerged as one of the top cancer-fighting foods.

The power of carrots lies in the group of pigments called carotenoids

(beta-carotene is among this group), which give them their orange color. "

 

While it is nice that scientists have made this discovery, carrots

were used to cure cancer long before any of the 206 human studies the

quote refers to. Raw vegetable juices, with raw carrots as the main

ingredient, coupled with a customized vegan diet, as a replacement for

the meat and dairy centered " Western " diet, has cured many, many

thousands of people of cancer.

 

I might add that carrot juice is the main ingredient in the vegetable

juice that serves at the heart of the " Raw Food Diet, " for which there

is an article on this web site.

Question #4

 

Question #4: How many Nobel Prize discoveries (and when were they

awarded) did Dr. Johanna Budwig use to help her develop the Flaxseed

Oil (omega 3) / Cottage Cheese (sulphur proteins) cancer treatment?

 

Answer: Two Nobel Prizes, Dr. Otto Warburg (1931) and Dr. Albert

Szent-Gyorgyi (1937). First, Dr. Warburg:

 

a.. " Dr Otto Warburg, twice Nobel laureate was able to prove that

cancer cannot grow in an high oxygen environment. He states: 'Cancer,

above all diseases, has countless secondary causes, but there is only

one prime cause: the prime cause of cancer is the replacement of

normal oxygen respiration of body cells by anaerobic respiration'. In

other words, lack of oxygen. His research revealed that when a cell is

denied 60% of its normal requirement of oxygen, it switches to a

fermentation mechanism and grows out of control. "

 

http://www.internethealthlibrary.com/Therapies/OxygenTherapy.htm

Second, Dr. Szent-Gyorgyi:

 

" Dr. Szent-Gyorgy won the Nobel Prize in 1937 for discovering that

essential fatty acids combined with sulphur-rich proteins (such as

those found in diary products) increases oxygenation of the body. "

 

http://www.healingdaily.com/conditions/cancer-prevention-measures.htm

Note that both of these Nobel Prizes were awarded in the 1930s. Dr.

Budwig developed a diet to combine these two discoveries into one

simple treatment plan - flaxseed oil and cottage cheese. Her treatment

has cured untold thousands of cancer patients.

Question #5

 

Question #5: It is absurd to think that a person can be cured of

cancer simply by changing their diet. Only professionals can cure

cancer. True or false?

 

Answer: I quote from alternative medicine expert Walter Last:

 

" To show how simple natural methods can be very effective in

overcoming advanced cancer, I like to mention an example from the book

The Food and Health of Western Man by Dr J. L. Mount. In five reported

cases of bowel cancer, surgery revealed that metastases had already

spread all over the body. Therefore, these patients were just closed

up again and sent home to die. But instead of doing that,

independently of each other, these five changed their diets and from

then on ate only homegrown organically raised food. When they finally

did die 21 to 30 years later, no traces of cancer could be found in

post-mortem examinations. Such cures without medical intervention are

regarded as 'spontaneous remissions'. "

http://www.mrbean.net.au/~wlast/cancerintroduction.html

 

The vast majority of cancer patients who go into " spontaneous

remission " made massive changes in their diet after being diagnosed

with cancer.

 

" A study was done on 200 cancer patients who had experienced

" spontaneous remission. " Doctors call these remissions " miracles. "

They're NOT miracles. Here's how they did it. Eighty seven percent of

them fundamentally changed their diets - mostly to vegetarian. All of

the 200 made changes in their lives including nutritional

supplementation and detoxification techniques. What this and other

studies are telling us is that cancer can be cured by fundamentally

changing the chemistry that created it. "

Raymond Francis ( http://www.aidsinfobbs.org/articles/quilty/q02/732)

 

Here is another interesting quote:

 

" A study of four hundred cancer cases that went into spontaneous

remission revealed cures which had little in common. Some people drank

grape juice or swallowed massive doses of vitamin C; others prayed,

took herbal remedies, or simply cheered themselves on. These very

diverse patients did have one thing in common, though. At a certain

point in their disease, they suddenly knew, with complete certainty,

that they were going to get better, as if the disease were merely a

mirage, and the patient suddenly passed beyond it into a space where

fear and despair and all sickness were nonexistent. "

http://www.paksearch.com/globe/1999/April/HIGHER.html

 

While it is true that many people go into spontaneous remission by

dramatically changing their diet and attitude, imagine what would

happen if newly diagnosed cancer patients were told:

 

1. What foods contained the most cancer-killing nutrients,

2. What foods contained the best nutrients to build the immune system,

3. What foods feed cancer cells and thus cause the cancer to grow

faster (these are foods to avoid),

4. The best supplements to kill cancer cells and build the immunity

system, and they were told

5. What things in a person's life can damage a natural treatment

plan (e.g. chlorine in tap water)?

 

For example, changing to a vegan diet would not necessarily cure

cancer, but going on a selective vegan diet and eating only the

vegetables and fruits known to contain large amounts of cancer killing

nutrients, and avoiding foods that feed the cancer, and avoiding foods

that interfere with the effectiveness of the cancer-fighting foods,

would yield a much higher cure rate than any orthodox treatment, even

better than Vitamin C therapy. But alternative medicine can do much

better than even this selective vegan protocol.

An Orthodox Cancer Treatment Quiz

 

Now let's test your knowledge of orthodox medicine. First, we need to

define a term:

 

Definition: total life The length of time between the diagnosis of

cancer and the death of the cancer patient, whether it is death by

cancer, death by cancer treatment or death by any other cause. This is

also called " survival time. "

 

Question #1: Chemotherapy and radiation put people into " remission. "

Putting people into remission proves that the " total life " (see above

definition) of a person is significantly increased by using

chemotherapy and radiation. True or false?

 

Question #2: If a cancer patient lives 5 years after diagnosis,

orthodox medicine considers that they are " cured " of cancer. Is this

concept mathematically equivalent to the concept of " total life? "

 

Question #3: The FDA would never approve a chemotherapy drug unless it

was scientifically proven, beyond any doubt, that the drug

significantly extends the " total life " of a cancer patient. True or false?

 

Question #4: Among the thousands of scientific studies on

chemotherapy, there is massive scientific evidence that chemotherapy

extends the " total life " of cancer patients compared to those who

refuse all treatment. True or false?

 

Question #5: Orthodox proponents claim that for some kinds of cancer,

" cure rates " have gone up over the past 10 or 20 years. They claim

this is just another proof that orthodox treatments are superior to

alternative treatments. Do you agree?

 

Now the answers.

Question #1

 

Question #1: Chemotherapy and radiation put people into " remission. "

Putting people into remission proves that the " total life " (see above

definition) of a person is significantly increased by using

chemotherapy and radiation. True or false?

 

Answer: People equate the concept of " remission " with the concept of

" cure. " Technically, " remission " means nothing more than one or more

of the symptoms of the cancer are gone (e.g. destroying a tumor may

put a cancer patient into " remission " ). However, even if a tumor is

destroyed, for example, and the person is judged to be in " remission, "

there still may be many areas of concentrated cancer cells in the

body. Thus a person can still have potentially damaging areas of

cancer in their body and they can still be considered to be in

" remission. "

 

There has never been scientific proof that the treatment of symptoms

generally relates to a longer " total life. " In other words, there has

never been scientific proof that the concept of removing " symptoms "

and the concept of increasing " total life " are related. Doctors treat

the symptoms of cancer in order to put patients into " remission, " but

their treatments have not been shown to increase " total life. " Indeed,

the " total life " of cancer patients has barely changed in over 80 years.

 

Furthermore, while many people do go into remission, for some types of

cancer more than 90% of the people that go into remission will come

out of remission (which is called " regression " ) and will later die of

cancer. " Total Life " has to do with the eventual death of the patient,

not the treatment of the symptoms of cancer. Consider this quote:

 

" Ovarian cancer is usually detected at an advanced stage and, as

such, is one of the deadliest and most difficult cancers to treat.

Therapy can eradicate the tumors, but most patients relapse within two

years ... Normally, when a woman is diagnosed with ovarian cancer, she

undergoes surgery to have the tumors removed. The ovaries, fallopian

tubes, uterus and parts of the bowel are often removed as well.

Chemotherapy follows the surgery, and about 90 percent of patients

then go into remission, a period of " watchful waiting. " " The problem

is that over the next five to 10 years, as many as 90 percent of women

will relapse and die, " says Berek. When the cancer returns in other

surrounding tissue, it is more virulent and resistant to chemotherapy. "

taken from:

http://www.azcentral.com/health/women/articles/0618ovarian.html

 

Of course the " returning " cancer is more deadly than the original

cancer, the person's immunity system was destroyed while treating the

symptoms of the first cancer. The cancer may never have left the

patient. Once chemotherapy has damaged the immunity system, the

patient is left far more vulnerable to cancer.

Question #2

 

Question #2: If a cancer patient lives 5 years after diagnosis,

orthodox medicine considers that they are " cured " of cancer. Is this

concept mathematically equivalent to the concept of " total life? "

 

Answer: It is assumed that the concept of " cure " (meaning patients who

survive 5 years after diagnosis), is equivalent to the concept of

" total life. " Consider two car manufacturing companies, Company B and

Company G. Let us define the " total life " of the cars these companies

manufacture to be the number of miles the cars drive before the engine

dies permanently and has to be replaced. Suppose the " total life " of

Company B cars is 100,000 miles and suppose the " total life " of the

Company G cars is 300,000 miles.

 

Clearly, Company G makes far superior automobiles. How can the Company

B executives make it appear that their car engines are as good as the

engines made by Company G? They can lie with statistics.

 

For example, what if Company B did a study of what percent of Company

B car engines and what percent of Company G car engines were still

running after 30,000 miles? Both companies would look very good and

you could not tell them apart. But if the study were based on what

percent of Company B car engines and what percent of Company G car

engines were still running after 250,000 miles, the truth about the

inferiority of Company B car engines would be obvious.

 

If the " benchmark " is carefully chosen to be well below the average,

any company will look good.

 

That is exactly how orthodox medicine lies with statistics. A " cure

rate " based on a patient living 5 years is like the engine test after

30,000 miles - it is meaningless. The benchmark is way too low. " Cure

rates " should be based on " total life " and nothing else. For example,

some cancers are very slow growing. The " cure rate " for these cancers

is very high, when in fact a 15-year " cure rate " would show just how

poor treatments are for some of these types of cancers.

Question #3

 

Question #3: The FDA would never approve a chemotherapy drug unless it

was scientifically proven, beyond any doubt, that the drug

significantly extends the " total life " of a cancer patient. True or false?

 

Answer: The FDA has never approved a chemotherapy drug that was shown

to significantly increase the " total life " of a cancer patient.

Chemotherapy drugs are approved based on the treatment of the symptoms

of cancer, not on " total life " rates. The effectiveness of

chemotherapy drugs is generally based on how well a new drug does

treating symptoms, compared only to how other chemotherapy drugs do

treating this same symptom!!

 

Furthermore, when a chemotherapy drug is approved for " extending

life, " the approval is also based on comparing one chemotherapy drug

(or combination of drugs) to another chemotherapy drug (or combination

of drugs).

 

Never, never, never, has a chemotherapy drug been approved by a study

comparing the use of the drug on one group of patients, and comparing

this group to a group of patients who refused treatments (in an FDA

filing), nor has a study ever been done comparing chemotherapy to one

of the top alternative cancer treatments (in an FDA filing).

 

a.. " We have a multi-billion dollar industry that is killing people,

right and left, just for financial gain. Their idea of research is to

see whether two doses of this poison is better than three doses of

that poison. " Dr Glen Warner, M.D. oncologist

 

Now a person might think that it would be unethical to compare a

chemotherapy drug to those who refuse treatments. If a person were

secretly given a placebo, perhaps that would be unethical. However,

there are plenty of people who voluntarily refuse to subject

themselves to orthodox treatments who could be used in a study to

compare a chemotherapy treatment plan to those who refuse treatment!!

Question #4

 

Question #4: Among the thousands of scientific studies on

chemotherapy, there is massive scientific evidence that chemotherapy

extends the " total life " of cancer patients compared to those who

refuse all treatment. True or false?

 

Answer: The next quote answers this question:

 

Professor Hardin B. Jones, PhD stated:

 

" My studies have proved conclusively that untreated cancer victims

live up to four times longer than treated individuals. If one has

cancer and opts to do nothing at all, he will live longer and feel

better than if he undergoes radiation, chemotherapy or surgery ... "

Prof Jones. (1956 Transactions of the N.Y. Academy of Medical

Sciences, vol 6) see also:

http://www.sickofdoctors.addr.com/articles/medicalignorance.htm

 

Now consider this quote:

 

" In 1975, the respected British medical journal Lancet reported on

a study which compared the effect on cancer patients of (1) a single

chemotherapy, (2) multiple chemotherapy, and (3) no treatment at all.

No treatment 'proved a significantly better policy for patients'

survival and for quality of remaining life.' " Barry Lynes, The Healing

of Cancer - The Cures - the Cover-ups and the Solution Now! - page 9

 

And this quote:

 

" 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 per cent 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! (Lancet, 10 August 1991) No mainstream media even mentioned

this comprehensive study: it was totally buried. "

 

~Tim O'Shea, The Doctor Within

 

Three major studies all came to the same conclusion: " orthodox cancer

treatments " do not extend the " total life " of cancer patients. In

fact, in many cases they shorten the " total life " of cancer patients.

 

Here is a prophetic quote about the future of chemotherapy and radiation:

 

" Twenty years from now we will look back at chemotherapy and

radiation as [being as] barbaric as using leeches, "

Steve Millett, manager of technology forecasts for Battelle

 

Question #5

 

Question #5: Orthodox proponents claim that for some kinds of cancer,

" cure rates " have gone up over the past 10 or 20 years. They claim

this is just another proof that orthodox treatments are superior to

alternative treatments. Do you agree?

 

Answer: Yes, some " cure rates " have gone up. This is the most damaging

deception of all.

 

Suppose Company B makes some small improvements in their engines and

the " total life " of their engines increases from 100,000 miles to

102,000 miles. Because of this, suppose the percentage of their

engines that last 30,000 increases from 92% to 93%.

 

Now imagine the CEO of Company B makes the following announcement:

 

" The percentage of our car engines that last 30,000 has increased from

92% to 93%. This proves that Company B cars last longer than Company G

cars. "

 

Is the CEO right? Of course not, Company G engines still last 300,000

and Company B engines only last 102,000. It is an absurd claim. What

the Company B executive has done is compare the " old " Company B cars

to the " new " Company B cars. The CEO has not compared the " total life "

of the Company B cars to the " total life " of the Company G cars.

 

That is exactly what the FDA does: compare how an " old " chemotherapy

drug treats symptoms compared to how a " new " chemotherapy drug treats

symptoms.

 

When orthodox medicine says that " cure rates " have gone up, they are

comparing their " old " chemotherapy stats to their " new " chemotherapy

stats - relative to treating symptoms. They are not comparing the

" total life " of orthodox treatments to the " total life " of alternative

treatments or even the " total life " of those who refuse treatments.

 

Orthodox medicine is continually " improving " their treatments, all

with a loud clarion blast of publicity. Their cure rates are always

" going up " and a cure is always " just around the corner. " But look at

it this way. Company B can improve their engines to last 102,000, and

5 years later they can improve them to 104,000, and 5 years later to

106,000, and so on. In the mean time people who bought cars from

Company G have cars that last 300,000, then 5 years later 305,000,

then 5 years later 310,000, and so on. So when will Company B catch up

to Company G? Never!!

 

But this sophisticated deception goes much deeper. " Cure rates " will

go up if the cancer is diagnosed earlier! In other words, if the

American Cancer Society convinces women to get mammograms (which are

carcinogenic, by the way) more often, their breast cancer will be

diagnosed earlier, on average, and the " cure rates " for breast cancer

will go up! The cure rate did not go up because of some improvement in

chemotherapy or radiation, but because women have carcinogenic

mammograms more frequently!

 

There are many ways to manipulate the " cure rates " of orthodox

medicine. My free, online eBook goes into this issue in much more detail.

 

In truth, the gap in " total life " between alternative cancer

treatments and orthodox cancer treatments is greater than the gap

between Company G cars and Company B cars. The Cameron/Pauling study

proved that. But there are many alternative cancer treatments that

have higher " total life " rates than Vitamin C therapy (based on

current Vitamin C technology). In fact I would not put Vitamin C

therapy in the " Top 100 " alternative cancer treatments.

 

Orthodox medicine, by using sophisticated definitions and deceptive

statistics, has convinced the public to believe that orthodox cancer

treatments extend the " total life " of patients. But there is no

scientific evidence for that belief!!

 

I want to emphasize that these deceptions were not developed by

ignorant people who didn't know what they were doing. They are

sophisticated, carefully designed statistical deceptions with

carefully chosen terminology. A normal person would automatically

think only about " total life, " but the " total life " numbers are

carefully hidden. More will be said about those doing the deception

later in this article.

Let Us Count The Ways

 

There are some things in the above quotes that may have shocked you.

The concept that people will die more quickly if they have surgery,

chemotherapy and radiation treatments may surprise some people. How is

it possible that people who go through treatments can die quicker than

people who refuse treatments?

 

In fact, there are many ways that orthodox cancer treatments can kill

a cancer patient long before they would have died without treatment of

any kind. For example:

 

a.. Malnutrition: About 40% of cancer patients die of malnutrition

before they would have died of their cancer. Two of the causes of this

malnutrition, which are related to chemotherapy, will now be

discussed: First, chemotherapy makes a person very nauseous and causes

them to throw-up. This causes many people to " ... 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. " Cachexia is a common cause of death

of cancer patients.

 

b.. Malnutrition: Second, chemotherapy destroys the lining of the

digestive tract of many cancer patients, making it impossible for the

body to absorb the nutrients of the foods they eat, leading to

malnutrition. As one person put it, even if a cancer patient eats like

a king, they can literally die of malnutrition.

 

c.. Destroys the Immunity System: Because chemotherapy and radiation

destroy a person's immunity system, many cancer patients die of

opportunistic infections, such as sepsis or pneumonia. As a side note,

more than 200,000 Americans a year die of sepsis. When a cancer

patient dies of sepsis it is most likely because chemotherapy

destroyed the patient's immunity system, allowing sepsis to easily

kill the patient. It may be counted as a sepsis death, not a cancer

death. This is just one of many ways that the medical community can

hide the true statistics of chemotherapy and radiation.

 

d.. Destroys the Immunity System: Because chemotherapy and radiation

kill white blood cells (white blood cells are the body's natural

defense against cancer), chemotherapy and radiation destroy not only a

body's natural defense against the cancer they currently have, it also

destroys the body's defense against new cancers.

 

e.. Destroys the Immunity System: Because chemotherapy and radiation

kill red blood cells (red blood cells carry oxygen to the cancer cells

and oxygen helps keep cancer from spreading), cancer cells do not get

a normal supply of oxygen. Since cancer cells are anaerobic, this

allows them to thrive and divide faster.

 

" So, if a Cancer patient is already Acidic & if Acid drives out

the oxygen causing an anaerobic atmosphere that Cancer loves, how much

sense does it make to take Chemotherapy that will kill more of your

oxygen carrying Red Blood Cells? By a matter of deduction and the use

of common sense once again, wouldn't that create an even more

anaerobic atmosphere and provide an even more desirable situation for

Cancer to wreak havoc? "

 

http://www.polymvasurvivors.com/what_you_know_4%20Corners%20Protocol.html

 

f.. Kill a Vital Organ: Chemotherapy and radiation frequently kill a

vital organ of a patient, such as the liver or heart. Once this

happens, without a transplant, nothing, not even alternative cancer

treatments, can save the patient.

 

g.. Helps Spread the Cancer: Surgical biopsies can release cancer

cells into the blood stream, causing the possibility that the biopsy

will cause the cancer to spread, meaning metastasize. Some cancer

surgeries can also cause cancer cells to get into the blood stream,

especially if the surgery does not " get " all of the cancer cells.

 

h.. Chemotherapy is Carcinogenic: Chemotherapy and radiation can

dramatically increase the probability that a person will get certain

types of cancer. For example, many women treated by chemotherapy and

radiation for breast cancer later develop uterine cancer. Chemotherapy

drugs are not only toxic, they are carcinogenic.

 

i.. Lose the Will To Live: Many cancer patients are so devastated by

the sickness and nausea orthodox treatments give them, that they lose

the will to live, meaning they lose the will to keep fighting their

cancer. Now are you surprised that the three major studies mentioned

above all yielded the same conclusion: there is no scientific evidence

that orthodox treatments extend the " total life " of most cancer patients?

 

I should note that alternative treatments for cancer have none of the

above problems. Alternative cancer treatments generally include

dietary items that build a person's immunity system, cause no pain,

provide large amounts of natural nutrients, do not spread the cancer,

selectively target and kill cancer cells, cause no damage to normal

cells, and so on.

So how can we judge whether orthodox cancer treatments should be used

at all?

 

Everyone knows that surgery, chemotherapy and radiation cause a

patient to become very sick and they do massive damage to the immunity

system, they can damage vital organs, etc. How, then, can we justify

the use of these three treatments? I would suggest that we " judge "

orthodox medicine based on three important criteria:

 

First, the increase in " total life " of the patient by use of the

treatment, Second, the damage done to a patient's immune system, which

causes a severe weakness in the person's ability to fight their

current cancer, plus their ability to fight future cancers, and Third,

the loss of " quality of life " of the patient.

 

Orthodox medicine fails in all three of these categories!! First,

there is no scientific evidence that in the vast majority of cancers,

orthodox treatments extend the " total life " of patients. Second, the

damage done to a patient's immunity system is very severe, plus it

even kills many red blood cells and can damage vital organs. Third,

orthodox treatments not only cause severe trauma to the patient, but

they also cause severe damage and stress to their body.

 

Suppose I made the statement: " In order to justify the damage done by

orthodox medicine, to both the body and quality of life of a cancer

patient, orthodox medicine must increase the " total life " of the

patient by 30%. "

 

Now some people might not like the 30% number, they may pick 20% or

another person might pick 100%. But whatever number you personally

pick, note that there is no scientific evidence that in 97% of the

cases, orthodox treatments extend the " total life " of patients one

minute. In fact, in most cases orthodox medicine shortens the life of

cancer patients!

 

Note: The 97% number came from cancer expert Ralph Moss, who could

only identify a few very rare types of cancer for which he though

orthodox treatments actually extended the " total life " of cancer patients.

 

Thus, how can we " justify " the use of orthodox treatments? We cannot

in 97% of the cases.

 

Here are images of an accidental chemotherapy spill on a person's

hand. Keep in mind that this is the stuff they put in a person's blood

veins! http://www.ricmasten.com/PCaOdyssey/Prostate%20spill%20page.html

More on Treating the Symptoms of Cancer

 

Dr. Philip Binzel, M.D., a medical doctor who used alternative cancer

treatments, discussed several key issues relative to the treatment of

the symptoms of cancer. Let us look at one of his quotes:

 

" When a patient is found to have a tumor, the only thing the

doctor discusses with that patient is what he intends to do about the

tumor. If a patient with a tumor is receiving radiation or

chemotherapy, the only question that is asked is, " How is the tumor

doing? " No one ever asks how the patient is doing. In my medical

training, I remember well seeing patients who were getting radiation

and/or chemotherapy. The tumor would get smaller and smaller, but the

patient would be getting sicker and sicker. At autopsy we would hear,

" Isn't that marvelous! The tumor is gone! " Yes, it was, but so was the

patient. How many millions of times are we going to have to repeat

these scenarios before we realize that we are treating the wrong thing?

 

In primary cancer, with only a few exceptions, the tumor is

neither health-endangering nor life-threatening. I am going to repeat

that statement. In primary cancer, with few exceptions, the tumor is

neither health-endangering nor life-threatening. What is

health-endangering and life-threatening is the spread of that disease

through the rest of the body.

 

There is nothing in surgery that will prevent the spread of

cancer. There is nothing in radiation that will prevent the spread of

the disease. There is nothing in chemotherapy that will prevent the

spread of the disease. How do we know? Just look at the statistics!

There is a statistic known as " survival time. " Survival time is

defined as that interval of time between when the diagnosis of cancer

is first made in a given patient and when that patient dies from his

disease.

 

In the past fifty years, tremendous progress has been made in the

early diagnosis of cancer. In that period of time, tremendous progress

had been made in the surgical ability to remove tumors. Tremendous

progress has been made in the use of radiation and chemotherapy in

their ability to shrink or destroy tumors. But, the survival time of

the cancer patient today is no greater than it was fifty years ago.

What does this mean? It obviously means that we are treating the wrong

thing!

 

We are treating the symptom - the tumor, and we are doing

absolutely nothing to prevent the spread of the disease. The only

thing known to mankind today that will prevent the spread of cancer

within the body is for that body's own defense mechanisms to once

again function normally. That's what nutritional therapy does. It

treats the defense mechanism, not the tumor.

 

The woman with a lump in her breast is not going to die from that

lump. The man with a nodule in his prostate gland is not going to die

from that nodule. What may kill both of those people is the spread of

that disease through the rest of their bodies. They got their disease

because of a breakdown of their defense mechanisms.

 

The only thing that is going to prevent the spread of their

disease is to correct the problem in those defense mechanisms. Doesn't

it seem logical then, that we should be a lot less concerned with

" What are we going to do about the tumor? " and a lot more concerned

about what we are going to do about their defense mechanisms? " ~Philip

Binzel, M.D., Alive and Well, Chapter 14

 

I want to emphasize a key point in that quote. Orthodox medicine

treats symptoms. They would have you believe that the tumor is the

cancer. The tumor is not the cancer. The tumor is a symptom of a

symptom. A tumor is a symptom of cancer and cancer is frequently a

symptom of a weakened immunity system. Is it best to treat the symptom

of the symptom or is it best to treat the cause?

Let us discuss another metaphor.

 

Suppose there is a farmer that has 100 acres of land. On this farm is

a house, a barn, several other buildings, a garden, and so on. Also on

this property are a lot of flies and maggots (maggots turn into flies).

 

Suppose this farm has a lot of cows and horses, and thus a lot of

manure. Naturally, you would expect far more maggots around the manure

than you would around the house. So suppose the farmer decides to

remove all of the manure from his property. Will that solve the fly

problem? Not at all. It may kill some maggots and even some flies, but

most of the flies will survive to breed new generations of maggots and

flies.

 

Treating cancer that has already metastasized by simply looking at the

size of the tumor is like studying how much manure there is on the

farm, and ignoring the flies.

 

Alternative cancer treatments focus on killing the flies (speaking

figuratively). Is the manure the problem? No, the flies are the

problem. If you safely kill the cancer cells in a tumor, and

throughout the rest of the body, the tumor is as harmless as your

little finger, even if the tumor is still there.

 

And therein lies one of the major differences between orthodox

medicine and alternative medicine. Orthodox medicine focuses on the

manure, alternative medicine focuses on the flies and the things that

naturally kill the flies.

 

Many alternative cancer treatments do not shrink the size of tumors.

Some do shrink the size of tumors, but some do not. So what? If the

cancer cells in a tumor are dead, the cancer will not spread and the

tumor is harmless.

 

This is what Dr. Binzel was talking about when he stated that orthodox

medicine was treating the wrong thing. They are treating the manure,

not the flies.

 

Only if the tumor is pressing on another organ, or is blocking some

bodily function, is the tumor dangerous. But in that case the tumor's

danger has nothing to do with cancer.

 

Another interesting thing in that quote is that nothing that orthodox

medicine does treats the spread of the cancer. While it is true that

some chemotherapy is designed to kill fast spreading cells in the

body, chemotherapy always kills far more normal cells than cancer

cells, Many normal cells in the body are fast spreading and are killed

by chemotherapy.

Chemotherapy would almost always kill the patient long before it would

kill all of the cancer cells in a body.

A Timeline

 

Let us draw a timeline in our minds. At the beginning of this timeline

is the date a person is diagnosed with cancer. At the end of this

timeline is when this person reaches an age of 100 years.

 

Let us put a single mark on this timeline. That mark is where this

patient would have died if they had refused all types of medical

treatment for their cancer. Let us say they did absolutely nothing to

change their diet or treat their cancer with either orthodox or

alternative cancer treatments. We will call this mark the " baseline. "

It is the line where a person who refuses treatment would die.

 

The scientific data is clear - the vast majority of orthodox cancer

patients will die to the left of their baseline or on top of their

baseline!!

 

Chemotherapy is 80 year old technology. It never worked, it will never

work because, as Dr. Binzel stated, it treats the wrong thing. Modern

cancer " research " is still not aimed at treating the right thing.

Radiation therapy is even older than chemotherapy and surgery is even

older than radiation.

 

What about alternative treatments? Alternative treatments do no harm

to the patient. Thus, because alternative treatments build the

immunity system and selectively kill cancer cells, it is clear that it

is impossible for alternative treatments to land a patient to the left

of their baseline!! Alternative treatments treat the right thing - the

immunity system. Virtually all alternative cancer treatments will

cause a person to live to the right of the baseline.

 

The question is this: how do we use alternative treatments to get a

person to live well past the baseline? Or to put it another way, how

do we get alternative treatments to " cure " cancer, in the sense that

the main body of cancer cells is dead and the immunity system is built

up to the point it can deal with new cancer cells?

 

There are more than 100 alternative treatments for cancer that will

allow more than half of those who use those treatments to " cure " their

cancer. Combining treatments will even extend this number.

 

The best of the alternative cancer treatments (which are actually

combinations of several alternative treatments) will easily cure over

90% of those who use those treatments instead of orthodox treatments.

As mentioned above, Dr. Kelley, who treated 33,000 cancer patients,

most of whom had been treated by orthodox medicine first, still had a

93% cure rate.

 

I am totally convinced, based on my extensive research, that if the

pharmaceutical industry (i.e. Big Pharma), our government agencies,

the American Cancer Society, the American Medical Association, etc.,

put their money and efforts into natural medicine research, that it

would not be long before 99% of all cancer patients would not die of

anything related to cancer or cancer treatments, directly or

indirectly! People would be more afraid of the flu than cancer! That

is the way it should be, but that is not the way it is.

 

Only the person's immunity system or the safe and selective killing of

cancer cells will cause a person to live longer than the baseline.

Orthodox treatments destroy a person's immunity system and do not

selectively kill cancer cells, nor do they safely kill cancer cells.

Chemotherapy is both toxic and carcinogenic.

 

Yet, all the time doctors tell their patients something like this: " if

you don't have chemotherapy you will live six months. " What exactly

does that mean? It implies that the patient will live longer if they

have chemotherapy, than if they avoid chemotherapy. But there is

absolutely no scientific evidence that chemotherapy, except for a few

rare types of cancer, ever extends the " total life " of a patient. It

is nothing but a scare tactic.

What Orthodox Medicine is Hiding

 

Suppose you had a chart where for each type of cancer, diagnosed at

each stage, there is listing of every possible type of cancer

treatment plan, alternative and orthodox, along with the " total life "

that each plan provides the typical patient with this type of cancer,

which is diagnosed at each stage. Suppose also that these statistics

were compiled by honest people.

 

For example, suppose there was a page for stage 3 / pancreas cancer.

On this page was a listing of the 100 best alternative treatments for

stage 3 pancreas cancer, along with the expected " total life " of new

cancer patients who chose each of these treatment plans. Likewise,

suppose on this same page was a listing of the " total life " for each

of the dozens of types of orthodox cancer treatments. Plus, suppose

there was the " total life " of those who refused all treatments.

 

By looking at this chart, a person with newly diagnosed stage 3

pancreas cancer could easily determine which of the more than one

hundred types of cancer treatments had the highest " total life " for

stage 3 pancreas cancer. Likewise, suppose a similar chart existed for

each type of cancer, diagnosed at each stage.

 

To apply this concept, suppose you were diagnosed with Stage 3

pancreas cancer. Suppose you looked at the chart for " Pancreas cancer

/ Stage 3 " and saw that a patient who took a specific orthodox

treatment had a " total life " expectancy of 2.3 years and that patients

who were treated with the Cameron/Pauling vitamin C protocol, and did

not have any orthodox treatments, had a " total life " of 13.8 years.

(Note: the actual " total life " numbers are not known but the " total

life " ratio in this hypothetical example is based on the actual

Cameron/Pauling ratio.)

 

You would note that the orthodox patients went through months of very

painful chemotherapy and radiation, not to mention they suffered much

sickness, the destruction of their digestive tract linings, sterility,

DNA damage, destruction of their immunity system, etc. The vitamin C

patients had none of these side effects, instead they had their

immunity system built up and lived 11.5 years longer. Which treatment

would you pick based on the chart?

 

Wouldn't you love to see the chart for your situation if you were

recently diagnosed with cancer!! I would love to see such charts!!

This web site would not be necessary!!

 

Having a chart as I just described, for the best 100 alternative

treatments for cancer and for all orthodox treatments, it would be

easy to decide which treatment protocol to choose. However, it is the

sole purpose of the FDA, NCI (National Cancer Institute), and NIH

(National Institutes of Health), all government agencies, to make sure

such charts are never created.

 

Why are government agencies and orthodox medicine so opposed to these

charts existing? Because if such charts existed no one would ever

choose orthodox treatments for cancer. No one - EVER!

 

If such charts existed, the percentage of recently diagnosed cancer

patients who died of something unrelated to cancer and unrelated to

cancer treatments would quickly climb to over 99% because everyone

would take a combination of the best alternative treatments for their

type of cancer! That is not an exaggeration!

 

But the government doesn't want you to pick the right treatment, they

want you to pick one of the Big Pharma treatments. They don't want you

to know the truth.

 

It is not that these people want you to die -- they don't care about

that -- they want money. The typical high-level government employee in

the FDA, NIH or NCI will be a millionaire within 3 years of quitting

the government. Big Pharma will reward them for their " services " while

they were with the government. This word spreads back to the current

executives and the cycle of loyalty continues.

 

Essentially, the government agencies are nothing but departments of

Big Pharma. I will say more about that in a moment.

 

" There is no lobby in Washington as large, as powerful or as well

financed as the pharmaceutical lobby, and according to a report from

Public Citizen, more than half of the drug industry's 625 registered

lobbyists [that is more than the number of members of Congress!] are

either former members of Congress or former Congressional staff

members and government employees ... Other evidence suggesting

possible FDA bias turned up in a study revealing that 37 of the 49 top

FDA officials who left the agency moved into high corporate positions

with the company they had regulated. Over 100 FDA officials owned

stock in the drug companies they were assigned to manage. "

http://www.jrussellshealth.com/healthpols.html

 

But let's think about those charts I talked about earlier. Suppose

that orthodox treatments were at the top of every one of the charts,

and alternative cancer treatment fared very poorly against orthodox

treatments. Why would Big Pharma feel the need to bribe public

officials and Congressmen?

 

If alternative medicine didn't work, the FDA would shut down all the

quacks, and Big Pharma wouldn't care. But it isn't the quacks that Big

Pharma is concerned about. It is the people that can cure cancer that

Big Pharma bribes the FDA to shut down.

 

Yes, there are " alternative medicine " " quacks " out there, but by

shutting down the real quacks, there is a public impression that

everyone the FDA shuts down is a quack. Nothing could be further from

the truth. Many of the clinics the feds shut down (whether FDA, FTC or

whatever) are top-notch alternative clinics that have very high cure

rates. There have been scores of excellent alternative practitioners

(some of them M.D.s) who had far better cure rates than orthodox

medicine, but who were shut down by orthodox medicine, usually by the

AMA or FDA.

 

In other words, if orthodox medicine were superior, in terms of " total

life, " why wouldn't they want those charts to be made?! Ponder that

carefully. If orthodox medicine were superior, they would gladly put

together the statistical information using " total life " to " prove "

their supposed superiority. They wouldn't need layer after layer of

deception -- the truth would tell the story. They could save a lot of

money in bribes and lobbyists if those charts existed and their

products were superior.

 

The NIH would gladly fund hundreds of legitimate studies for

alternative medicine if these studies gave them the results they

wanted. But they know the truth and know they must suppress the truth

and suppress the charts. It is the attempts by alternative medicine to

put together enough evidence to gather these statistics that is the

primary target of government corruption (yes, the ease and willingness

to be bribed is one of the major criteria for the definition of

" corruption " ).

 

Now consider this. If orthodox cancer therapy were superior to

alternative cancer therapies, then alternative cancer practitioners

would want their patients to have surgery, as part of the treatment,

to kill concentrated masses of cancer cells, and hope this caused the

patients to live longer. In other words, alternative doctors would use

surgery to hide the ineffectiveness of their treatments. On the other

hand, orthodox treatments would not require surgery because orthodox

treatments would safely kill cancer cells.

 

But just the opposite is true. Orthodox therapies request surgery to

kill concentrated masses of cancer cells and hide their

ineffectiveness. On the other hand, I have never heard of one of the

respected alternative cancer practitioners recommend surgery to kill

cancer cells. It isn't necessary. The only time surgery is recommended

is to remove the pain of a tumor pressing against another organ or if

there is a blockage or there is some immediate life-threatening

problem caused by the tumor. But never is surgery recommended as part

of the cancer treatment.

 

Yet, in spite of the fact that orthodox medicine uses surgery, in

almost every case, a person would live longer if they refused all

orthodox treatments, including surgery.

 

The imaginary charts I am talking about is what the orthodox

establishment, which includes the American Medical Association (AMA),

FDA, NIH, NCI, American Cancer Society (ACS), quackwatch, etc. don't

want you to ever see. All of these organizations are funded and

controlled by Big Pharma or they are in collusion with Big Pharma.

There have been over 50 books written on this corruption and

suppression of truth! Have you ever heard one of these books discussed

on television?

 

The orthodox establishment wants you to think that there is " no

scientific evidence " that alternative treatments work. In fact, our

corrupt government has carefully manufactured the public impression

that there is " no scientific evidence. " This allows them to justify

not creating the charts I have been talking about and it allows them

the authority to crush alternative medicine.

How the Cancer Industry Suppresses The Truth

 

In prior sections I have discussed how the " Cancer Industry " (i.e. Big

Pharma, the FDA, NIH, NCI, ACS, AMA, ad nauseum) uses statistics to

lie about the lack of effectiveness of orthodox cancer treatments.

 

This section will deal specifically with how they suppress the

existence of the charts mentioned in the prior section. However,

before understanding how the Cancer Industry does its thing, we must

first talk about how the tobacco industry was able to suppress the

truth about the relationship between tobacco and cancer, emphysema,

etc. for over 65 years.

 

If someone were to do a study on the relationship between tobacco and

lung cancer, it would be a very easy thing to do:

 

1. Determine the percentage of non-smokers who get lung cancer,

2. Determine the percentage of smokers who get lung cancer,

3. Run the statistics

 

A class of high school students with a phone book could do a study

that found a highly, statistically significant relationship between

tobacco products and lung cancer. It is easy to find non-smokers, it

is easy to find smokers, thus this type of study would always be an

easy thing to do. Of course there are more ways to ascertain the

relationship between tobacco and lung cancer than this, but this is

the technique I want to emphasize.

 

The first scientific study finding the relationship between tobacco

and lung cancer was done in the early 1930s. There had been many

informal observations before that first scientific study, but we will

start with the early 1930s.

 

As time passed there were more and more scientific studies that

related tobacco products and lung cancer. By the 1950s there was

simply an overwhelming amount of scientific information that linked

tobacco products to lung cancer.

 

So why was it that the flood of lawsuits against tobacco companies had

to wait until the 1990s?

 

The tobacco industry did a lot of things to suppress the truth. By far

the most effective of these tactics was to use bribery to control the

politicians ( " bribery " is a term I use to encompass a wide variety of

influence tactics) and advertising money to control the media. That

was as easy as stealing candy from a baby. As always it worked to

perfection.

 

Furthermore, it is easy to bribe executives of organizations. The AMA

was easy to control and at no time offered a threat to the tobacco

industry. It is the scientists they had to control. But how do you use

bribery to control the scientific establishment? Aren't they people of

impeccable integrity? It turns out that the answer is 'no'.

 

The " scientific " community was more than eager to take a share of the

tobacco industry money pie and do numerous " bogus " scientific studies

that did not find a relationship between tobacco and lung cancer. Now

the reader might wonder how a " scientist " can do a scientific study

and not find a relationship between tobacco and lung cancer. It is

easy to do - just design a study that doesn't look for a relationship!

 

The tobacco industry set up numerous " front companies " to do certain

tasks, one of which was to fund scientific studies that did not look

for a relationship between tobacco and lung cancer. They spent scores

of millions of dollars funding these studies.

 

" Since 1954, one of CTR's [Council for Tobacco Research - U.S.A.,

Inc.] principal activities has been to fund scientific research by

independent scientists through its grant-in-aid program, under the

supervision of its Scientific Advisory Board (SAB) supplemented on

occasion by research contracts. CTR itself has not conducted any

scientific research. Through this research program, from 1954 through

1996 CTR has provided approximately $282 million to fund over 1,500

research projects by approximately 1,100 independent scientists.

 

The researchers who have received CTR grant funding have been

affiliated with approximately 300 medical schools, universities,

hospitals and other research institutions, including such prestigious

institutions as Harvard Medical School, Yale School of Medicine,

Stanford University, numerous institutions in the University of

California system, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, the University of

Chicago Medical Center, the Scripps Research Institute, the Mayo

Clinic and the Salk Institute. The researchers who have received this

funding have not been employees of the tobacco companies or CTR. CTR's

grantees have included many distinguished scientists, three of whom

have won Nobel Prizes. " http://www.rkmc.com/tobacco.order91097.asp

 

Now explain something to me. If a group of high school students with a

phone book can scientifically prove there is a relationship between

tobacco and lung cancer, emphysema, etc., how is it possible that

1,500 research projects, done over a period of 42 years, by

researchers at 300 prestigious medical schools, etc. had not been able

to find a relationship between tobacco products and lung cancer,

emphysema, etc.!!!

 

The answer is that in order to obtain funding, they knew they had

better not find a relationship! The rules of getting research money

are very simple. You ascertain who you are getting paid by, you

ascertain what they what you to publish, then you accept their money

and do a study which does not double-cross them. Otherwise, your

" research " money dries up real fast.

 

In other words, these " researchers " weren't looking for a relationship

between tobacco and lung cancer, they were looking for research money.

They weren't looking for useful, scientific truth, they were looking

for a source of long-term funding.

 

Here is an interesting quote:

 

" Far from being independent, the activities of the CTR [Council

for Tobacco Research] and SAB [scientific Advisory Board] activities

were monitored and controlled by industry representatives, including

tobacco company lawyers and public relations consultants. Indeed, the

lawyers stopped central nervous system research proposals, screen out

'dangerous project proposals', and funded 'special projects' designed

for litigation purposes. "

 

It continues,

 

" Although the industry funded a number of other 'outside' research

projects, it did so only when it received clear advance assurances of

a 'favorable' outcome. For example, Dr. Gary Huber, then of Harvard,

solicited industry funds with his view that 'the number of people at

potential risk from tobacco consumption is extremely small relative to

the very large number of people who now smoke.' " (Page 20 of the

report, or Bates Page 681879286) "

 

http://tobaccodocuments.org/landman/37575.html?start_page=1 & end_page=462

 

The " researchers " who, year after year, dipped into this money pot had

to know what was going on. It seems that a person who picks a career

as a doctor or scientist is not much different than a person who picks

a career as a politician. They are both looking for the same thing -

money.

 

The result of this funding scam was that there were numerous

scientific studies that found a relationship between tobacco and lung

cancer in scientific journals, which were not funded by the tobacco

industry, and there were numerous scientific studies, just mentioned,

that did not find a relationship between tobacco and lung cancer, that

were funded by the tobacco industry.

 

Because of the " confusion " caused by these different studies there was

not a " consensus " among scientists whether tobacco and lung cancer

were related.

 

And here is the critical key: without a consensus there was not

" scientific evidence " that there was a relationship between tobacco

and lung cancer, etc. There must be a consensus for " scientific

evidence. " At least that is what the media would like you to believe.

 

However, when there is a consensus of opinion by researchers who do

not have a conflict of interest (i.e. they aren't funded by the group

being investigated), then it should be considered that THERE IS A

CONSENSUS and there is SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE!!!

 

The statement in red is absolutely essential to understand. ANY study

done under the control of the industry being investigated should be

IGNORED by scientific circles. However, the money is too good for them

to be ignored by the " scientific " establishment!!!

 

Let me give you a more recent example of why industry sponsored

studies should NEVER be published or even be considered. Aspartame,

known also as NutraSweet, Equal, etc., was very controversial during

the time it was being studied. It caused holes in the brains of rats!

Some scientists didn't want it approved for human consumption. Even

some scientists in the FDA didn't want it approved.

 

Dr. Ralph G. Walton, M.D., did a study of 166 published studies on the

safety of aspartame. The funding of these studies were from the

following sources:

 

1. The pharmaceutical industry funded 74 of the studies

2. The FDA funded 7 studies

3. There were 85 studies that were not funded by Big Pharma or the FDA

 

Now stop and think real hard - which of the three groups of studies

didn't find anything wrong with aspartame?

 

Of the 74 Big Pharma funded studies, not a single one of them found

any health problems caused by aspartame. Of the 85 studies that were

not funded by Big Pharma or the FDA, 84 of them did find health

problems caused by aspartame. Do you see a pattern here?

 

Where do you think the 7 FDA studies landed? 6 of the 7 found no

health problems caused by aspartame.

See: http://www.dorway.com/peerrev.html

 

By the way, Walton put the " research " funded by the International Life

Sciences Institute (ILSI - a noble sounding name) in with the group of

industry sponsored studies. It seems that Big Pharma, and others,

funded a group similar to the CTR of the tobacco industry.

 

This kind of " science " sounds strangely like what happened with the

tobacco industry. Because of this dilution, when I tell someone that

aspartame causes brain cancer, birth defects, etc. (actually over 90

different documented health problems), people just look at me and

laugh. They will say there is " no scientific evidence " that aspartame

causes any health problems. Or they will say you have to drink 800

Diet Cokes every day for it to affect your health. That is exactly

what the pharmaceutical industry wants you to think.

 

But the truth is far different than the nonsense. My point is that

scientists still seem quite willing to give people who fund their

studies whatever they want.

 

" When morality comes up against profit, it is seldom that profit

loses. "

Shirley Chisholm

 

Now let's turn our attention to the Cancer Industry. Let us suppose

that someone wanted to test Vitamin C versus chemotherapy in a

scientific study. They would simply do the following:

 

1. With one group of patients, determine the " total life " of people

who were given chemotherapy, but who did not take Vitamin C.

2. With one group of patients, similar in age, type of cancer,

etc., determine the " total life " of people who took Vitamin C therapy,

and who did not take chemotherapy,

3. Run the statistics

 

It sounds so simple. But there is a problem, our corrupt government

can stop anyone who wants to do a study for item #2. In fact they can

stop a study on live patients for any type of alternative treatment

for cancer.

 

The FDA will not allow anyone to do a scientific study to find the

" total life " of people who use Vitamin C therapy and who do not take

chemotherapy. Their lie to justify this absurd policy is to " protect

the public. " The truth is that they don't want the truth to come out

about how bad orthodox cancer treatments are relative to alternative

treatments.

 

Could such a study be ethically justified? Of course, just find

patients who refuse all orthodox treatments and ask them to volunteer

for an alternative medicine study. How can building their immunity

system and safely and selectively killing their cancer cells do them

any harm? But " ethics " is a dirty word in Washington. If high ranking

government employees had ethics, it would massively affect their

retirement program from Big Pharma.

 

The Linus Pauling / Ewan Cameron study had to be done in Scotland and

it was done on terminal patients who had nothing to lose by being in

the study.

 

Because of the FDA it is not possible to obtain the statistics

necessary to prove that alternative treatments are far better than

chemotherapy. That is one of the many reasons the FDA was created. The

FDA only " accepts " studies done by pharmaceutical companies and

government agencies that are controlled by Big Pharma. Everyone else

is ignored.

 

Now let's talk more about the Vitamin C treatment of Cameron and

Pauling. What do you think the reaction of orthodox medicine was to

this great discovery? Do you think they tried to find ways to use this

discovery and even enhance it? Don't be absurd. Their reaction was

identical to their reaction to all of the other great discoveries in

alternative medicine, they wanted to bury the truth.

 

But one of the participants of the Vitamin C study was a two-time

Nobel Prize winner. Linus Pauling had already won a Nobel Prize in

chemistry and he won the Nobel Peace Prize. Thus orthodox medicine

could not simply bury his studies. They decided to use a tactic to

destroy truth that had been refined and perfected by the tobacco

industry. That tactic was to create new " studies " that were designed

to distract attention from the truth.

 

Orthodox medicine called upon Dr. Moertel of the Mayo Clinic to design

three bogus " studies, " which did not, by any stretch of the

imagination, follow the same treatment protocol, patient selection

protocol or the same statistical evaluation protocol, as Cameron and

Pauling had used (actually, Dr. Moertel was not involved in the third

study). Additionally, they probably did not use natural Vitamin C.

 

Now note this carefully, if the Mayo Clinic wanted to know the truth

about the Cameron/Pauling studies, they would have taken great care to

follow their treatment protocol, patient selection protocol and

statistical evaluation protocol exactly!! To use high school students

again, a group of high school students could have followed the

Cameron/Pauling protocols perfectly. But the Mayo Clinic took great

care to make sure they did not follow the Cameron/Pauling protocols.

Since they didn't follow protocols, they didn't come to the same

conclusions.

 

So who do you think that orthodox medicine, the government, the media,

quackwatch, etc. quotes when the subject of Vitamin C and cancer comes

up? Obviously, they quote the Mayo Clinic studies, not the three

studies (done in Scotland, Canada and Japan) that did follow the same

treatment and evaluation protocols. I have an entire chapter in my

free, online eBook on this subject.

 

The Mayo Clinic also did two bogus studies on laetrile, also known as

Vitamin B17. Without going into the details, based on what I have read

the " laetrile " pills provided by the NIH to the Mayo Clinic for the

studies contained absolutely no natural laetrile, but they did contain

some inorganic cyanide, which is poisonous. My eBook goes into a

little more detail about these studies.

 

In short, Congress has given the FDA, NIH, NCI, etc. a blank check and

a big club to legally stop any study (that is not totally under the

control of orthodox medicine) that compares alternative treatments to

chemotherapy. This means item #2 above is impossible to accomplish for

any type of alternative treatment, meaning that without item #2, the

gathering of item #3 statistics are impossible to accumulate! The

charts mentioned above can never be made!!

 

Lest you think that " scientists " cannot be corrupted by the

pharmaceutical industry, as they were by the tobacco industry,

consider this quote:

 

" In June [2002], the New England Journal of Medicine, one of the

most respected medical journals, made a startling announcement. The

editors declared that they were dropping their policy stipulating that

authors of review articles of medical studies could not have financial

ties to drug companies whose medicines were being analyzed.

 

The reason? The journal could no longer find enough independent

experts. Drug company gifts and " consulting fees " are so pervasive

that in any given field, you cannot find an expert who has not been

paid off in some way by the industry. So the journal settled for a new

standard: Their reviewers can have received no more than $10,000 [per

year] from companies whose work they judge. Isn't that comforting?

 

This announcement by the New England Journal of Medicine is just

the tip of the iceberg of a scientific establishment that has been

pervasively corrupted by conflicts of interest and bias, throwing

doubt on almost all scientific claims made in the biomedical field.

 

The standard announced in June was only for the reviewers. The

actual authors of scientific studies in medical journals are often

bought and paid for by private drug companies with a stake in the

scientific results. While the NEJM and some other journals disclose

these conflicts, others do not. Unknown to many readers is the fact

that the data being discussed was often collected and analyzed by the

maker of the drug involved in the test. "

http://www.healtoronto.com/big_pharm.html

 

But even this quote does not pinpoint how the pharmaceutical industry

has achieved total suppression of truth.

 

Think for a moment about the difference between how the tobacco

industry suppressed the truth between 1954 and the 1990s, and how the

pharmaceutical industry is suppressing the truth today. Try to isolate

and pinpoint the huge difference between their tactics before reading

on ...

 

With the tobacco industry, the tobacco sponsored studies did not find

a relationship between tobacco and lung cancer, and other diseases. On

the other hand, non-tobacco industry studies did consistently find a

relationship between tobacco and lung cancer, etc.

 

Likewise, the pharmaceutical industry studies on aspartame did not

find any health problems with aspartame. On the other hand, the

non-pharmaceutical industry studies did find health problems with

aspartame.

 

As you might suspect, the pharmaceutical industry studies on orthodox

treatments do not find any problems with orthodox cancer treatments

(how can you find a problem by comparing your " old " toxic sludge to

your " new " toxic sludge). However, and here is the difference, because

of the FDA, NCI and AMA there are no scientific studies on alternative

cancer treatments!!! They are not legal. They are not allowed.

 

Do you see the difference? Anyone who wants to find the truth about

alternative cancer treatments are not allowed to do studies!!!!! The

pharmaceutical industry has gone a giant leap beyond what the tobacco

industry was able to do. There are NO truthful studies to dilute!!!

 

For example, during the 42 years the tobacco industry was funding

their many hundreds of bogus scientific studies, suppose a government

agency had the authority to block ANY study that was not funded by the

tobacco industry? That is exactly the level of suppression of truth

that the pharmaceutical industry has achieved - they have been able to

block all cancer studies that are not funded by the pharmaceutical

industry or our corrupt government!!!

 

You have now heard a few of the good things about alternative cancer

treatments (truth table #3) and a few of the bad things about orthodox

cancer treatments (truth table #4). Let's analyze why, throughout your

life, you have only heard the items in truth table #1 and truth table #2.

The Media

 

If you failed the tests at the beginning of this article, you might

wonder why the massive number of hours you have probably watched

television and listened to the radio did not better prepare you to ace

the tests.

 

Perhaps the next quote will help you understand:

 

" There is no such thing, at this date of the world's history, in

America, as an independent press. You know it and I know it. There is

not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you

did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am

paid weekly for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper I am

connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar

things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest

opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job. If I

allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before

twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone. The business of the

journalists is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to

vilify, to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his

race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it, and what folly is

this toasting an independent press? We are the tools and vassals of

rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the

strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are

all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes. "

 

John Swinton (1829-1901) pre-eminent New York journalist & head of

the editorial staff at the New York Times. Quoted one night around

1880. Swinton was the guest of honour at a banquet given him by the

leaders of his craft. Someone who knew neither the press nor Swinton

offered a toast to the independent press.

 

On any given year, Big Pharma pumps billions of dollars into the media

companies for advertisements. Also, in any given year, not one penny

is spent on advertising the Brandt Grape Cure because you can buy the

necessary ingredients in a grocery store or a health food store.

Likewise, you can buy necessary products at a grocery store to go on

the Budwig diet (using walnuts instead of flaxseed oil) and many other

alternative treatments for cancer.

 

In other words, there are many alternative treatments for cancer that

will not provide Big Pharma a single penny of revenue, much less

profits. This means these same treatments will not provide the media

with a single penny of revenue. Guess which treatments the media

pushes? In fact the Federal Trade Commission won't allow alternative

cancer treatments to be advertised, because all of them are " unproven "

(translation: not profitable to Big Pharma).

 

It has been known for over a hundred years that our American media are

nothing but whores, who sell their opinions to the highest bidder. The

highest bidder, by a colossal margin, is always orthodox medicine.

This explains why you have heard thousands of things in the media in

truth table #1 and truth table #2, and it explains why you have

probably never heard anything in the media in truth table #3 and truth

table #4.

 

The media never gives publicity to books or articles that criticize

Big Pharma. For example, the media has said nothing about how the

pharmaceutical industry has blocked such books as: Corporate Crime in

the Pharmaceutical Industry, by Dr. John Braithwaite, The Drug Story,

by Morris A. Bealle, House of Rockefeller, also by Morris A. Bealle,

and others. Try to buy one of these books on Amazon!! These books are

very critical of Big Pharma.

 

And the media says nothing good about alternative medicine. For

example, if the media says nothing about a book, it is guaranteed to

have a very small amount of sales. Thanks to the media, no one will

ever hear about books such as: Cancer, Cause, Cure and Cover-Up, by

Ron Gdanski, The Germ That Causes Cancer, by Doug A. Kaufmann, Choose

Life or Death - The Reams Biological Theory of Ionization, by Carey A.

Reams, and many others.

 

By not mentioning a book, they are essentially destroying any

possibility anyone will know about it. On the other hand, with one

media blast, millions of people can be deceived in a single half-hour.

The channels of deception are wide-open, always waiting to deceive the

public, millions at a time. Yet, truth has no voice in the mass media.

 

The end result of all of this is that you do not know the truth about

either orthodox treatments for cancer or alternative treatments for

cancer! Let me say that again: you do not know the truth about either

orthodox treatments for cancer or alternative treatments for cancer.

 

There is a war going on in medicine today, a war between orthodox

medicine and alternative medicine. The war is being fought with money

and information. The war is to control what you know, and don't know,

about cancer treatments. The war is to control whether you know the

truth about al l of your cancer treatment options.

 

What you hear about orthodox treatments for cancer on television, the

radio, the big magazines, etc. is a maze of sophisticated layers of

lies and deception. It is like putting make-up on a T-Rex. What I have

talked about is only the tip of the iceberg. My point is to emphasize

that during your life you have not heard the truth about alternative

treatments for cancer, you have only heard what Big Pharma wants you

to hear. What you have heard in the media is not based on a love of

truth, it is based on a love of money.

 

If you trust the wrong side in this war, it could cost you your life

or the life of your spouse or the life of some other person close to

you! It is a war that leaves people dead who don't do their homework

and thus end up trusting the wrong people.

 

Now let us talk about the massive group of corporations that pulls the

strings of their many puppets, all for the sake of profit.

The Pharmaceutical Industry

 

While the pharmaceutical industry does provide many life-saving and

quality of life drugs, their lust for money has taken them into areas

they have no business being in. There are many health areas where

natural substances are far superior to mutated, synthetic molecules.

Mother Nature is a far better chemist than all of the pharmaceutical

chemists combined -- and will be for the next ten thousand years!

 

But because pharmaceutical companies cannot patent natural substances,

they cannot make much of a profit from natural substances, even if

they sold them (which some pharmaceutical companies do). Thus, to make

the huge profits needed to appease their stockholders, they revert to

pushing the most profitable synthetic molecules they can pass off as

useful. In other words, they make decisions of what products to sell

based solely on how profitable they are.

 

They also fund much of the massive effort to suppress the truth about

natural molecules.

 

But the stockholders and executives of Big Pharma are not the only

ones who profit from the massive pharmaceutical money pie. Pharmacies

are more than happy to sell chemotherapy drugs. Doctors are more than

happy to use surgery, chemotherapy and radiation. Hospitals are more

than happy to house cancer patients and provide facilities to doctors.

T.V. stations are more than happy to share in the pie. And many, many

others share in the profits of this industry.

 

But it gets worse. The pharmaceutical industry has its hands in the

pockets of Congress. Congress has protected the pharmaceutical

industry via their creation and control of the FDA, NIH and NCI. In

fact most government agencies were created to protect the profits of

some large corporate industry which had power in Washington.

 

Corporations do not have police powers. So the way they get these

police powers is to use their influence among corrupt politicians in

Washington to create a government agency to, by proxy, exercise the

police powers for the benefit of the corporations.

 

Congress is so concerned about protecting the profits of Big Pharma,,

that in November, 2003 Congress handed a " corporate welfare " check to

Big Pharma for scores of billions of dollars:

 

" The Medicare legislation that passed the House near dawn on

Saturday and is moving toward a final vote in the Senate would steer

at least $125 billion over the next decade in extra assistance to the

health care industry and U.S. businesses ... "

Washington Post, November 24, 2003

 

Since when does Big Pharma need " extra assistance. " The bill, by the

way, forbids the government from negotiating lower drug prices. How

often did you hear this fact emphasized in the media before the bill

was passed? Congress has a long history of being far more interested

in the health of big business than in the health of the American people.

 

Rep. Billy Tauzin, the Louisiana congressman who largely wrote the

$540 billion prescription-drug bill for Big Pharma resigned from

congress to accept a $2 million-a-year job in the drug industry.

 

Big Pharma not only makes billions of dollars in profits from

chemotherapy drugs every year, which do nothing but treat the symptoms

of cancer, they also make hundreds of millions of dollars in profits

every year for making drugs to treat the symptoms of chemotherapy and

radiation!

 

Lest you think Congress is a group of strong-minded people who are

deeply concerned about what is best for you, consider this: aspartame

(i.e. NutraSweet, Equal, etc.) is known to cause brain damage to

unborn children (i.e. a fetus). The damage is manifest as autism, ADD,

mental retardation, etc. (see my article for pregnant women on this

web site for more information). Now consider this quote:

 

" Prompted by mounting safety concerns within the scientific

community, Ohio Senator Howard Metzenbaum called for Senate hearings

on NutraSweet. He introduced the Aspartame Safety Act of 1985 on

August 1st of that year. The bill called for clinical studies to

ascertain the safety of aspartame, a moratorium on the introduction of

aspartame into new products until independent testing was complete,

labeling of products including the amount of aspartame in each serving

and the allowable daily intake, and a warning that aspartame is not

intended for infant use. The bill also required the FDA to set up a

clinical adverse reaction committee to collect reports of adverse

effects and to send written notices to physicians about aspartame. In

a March 3, 1986 news release, the Senator stated 'we cannot use

American's children as guineas pigs to determine the 'safe' level of

NutraSweet consumption.' Sadly, the bill that potentially could have

stopped an ongoing tragedy, was killed in the Labor and Human

Resources Committee, and never reached the Senate floor. "

http://www.vegsource.com/davis/sweeteners.htm

 

See also: Metzenbaum H. Discussion of S.1557 (Aspartame Safety Act).

Congressional Record-Senate August 1, 1985, p.S 10820.

 

Did you hear about that bill in the media?

 

As an example of Big Pharma controlled Big Government, Hydrazine

Sulphate was being successfully used against cachexia. The NCI said

they would " test " the product. They intentionally did not follow

protocol and effectively murdered all of the patients in the study. By

doing this they could say there was " no scientific evidence " the

treatment worked and they were able to suppress this treatment for

over 10 years.

 

" As a result of [the peer-reviewed studies that demonstrated the

effectiveness of hydrazine sulphate], the U.S. National Cancer

Institute - which had placed hydrazine sulfate on its 'unproven

therapy' list - sponsored three scientific studies to assess the

benefit of hydrazine sulfate. These studies, published in 1994, found

no benefit from hydrazine sulfate treatment. However, a review of

these studies revealed that 94% of study patients had also taken at

least one [of] the medications which can block the effect of hydrazine

sulfate. Proponents of hydrazine sulfate have concluded that the

results of the N.C.I. sponsored studies are invalid, and that there is

abundant published, peer-reviewed scientific studies attesting to its

benefit. "

http://www.healing.bc.ca/therapy_hydrazine.shtml

 

Many books have been written that document the persecution of

alternative cancer doctors who cured too many of their patients with

inexpensive natural products. Of course, most people have never heard

of these books because the media does not give them the free publicity

they give their favored books.

The American Medical Association

 

The AMA is nothing more than a labor union for doctors. Their job,

like all labor unions, is to maximize the profits of their members.

But the AMA is a labor union with power because it controls who can

" practice medicine. " In other words, the many experts in alternative

cancer treatments cannot " practice medicine " unless they are first

trained and brainwashed in the use of pharmaceutical medicine.

However, that is not the end of it. Not even an M.D. can " practice

medicine " if he or she does not use " approved " procedures which are

adequately profitable to Big Pharma and the other members of the AMA.

 

The relationship between Big Pharma and the AMA is a quid pro quo,

roughly translated: " you scratch my back, I'll scratch your back. " The

AMA makes sure its members prescribe toxic substances to increase the

profits of Big Pharma. Likewise, the AMA makes sure its members treat

the symptoms of disease (instead of the causes of disease) to insure

the patient is not made well too quickly and the profits of Big Pharma

are not hindered by the treatment of the causes of disease.

 

On the other hand, Big Pharma never forgets that the AMA has power

equal to the FDA. Big Pharma would never come up with drugs that would

seriously jeopardize the profits of the hospitals and doctors. That is

why every year more and more people die of cancer, in spite of the

billions of dollars in cancer research.

 

What exactly are the AMA and Big Pharma looking for? They are not

looking for cheaper and safer treatments, they are looking for more

profitable treatments. Gene therapy, stem cell transplants, bone

marrow transplants, ad nauseum, are what they are looking for. They

are looking for things that will make doctors and Big Pharma richer,

more powerful and more sophisticated in the eyes of the public. They

are not looking for an improved Budwig Diet.

 

The story of Dr. Royal Rife typifies the attitude of the AMA labor

union and Big Pharma towards alternative medicine:

 

" In 1934, the University of Southern California appointed a

Special Medical Research Committee to bring 16 terminal cancer

patients from Pasadena County Hospital to [Royal] Rife's San Diego

Laboratory and clinic for treatment. The team included doctors and

pathologists assigned to examine the patients, if still alive, in 90

days. After the 3 months of treatment, the Committee concluded that 14

of the patients had been completely cured. The treatment was then

adjusted and the remaining 2 also were cured within the next 4 weeks.

[Prior to this trial] on November 20, 1931, forty-four of the nation's

most respected medical authorities [had] honored Royal Rife with a

banquet billed as " The End To All Diseases " at the Pasadena estate of

Dr Milbank Johnson.

 

But by 1939, almost all of these distinguished doctors and

scientists were denying that they had ever met Rife. This complete

reversal was the result of pressure from the drug companies on them.

'Pressure' is a very nice way of saying it. On the eve of a press

conference to announce the results of the 1934 study on Rife's cancer

therapy, Dr Milbank Johnson, former president of the Southern

California AMA, was fatally poisoned and his papers " lost " . Also,

after a failed attempt by [AMA Head] Morris Fishbein to buy the rights

to Rife's healing instrument for the medical drug industry [so they

could destroy the technology], Rife's labs were destroyed by arson and

sabotage. Dr. Nemes, who had duplicated some of the work of Rife, was

killed in a mysterious fire which destroyed all his research papers. A

similar fire also destroyed the Burnett Lab, which was validating

Rife's work. Royal Rife himself was killed in 1971 by an " accidental "

lethal dose of Valium and alcohol at Grossmont Hospital. "

http://www.aboutroyalrife.com/ed/rife-story.htm

 

The reason there is " no scientific evidence " for the Rife Machine is

because orthodox medicine destroyed all the evidence and the life's

work of this genius.

 

The objective, guiding light and controlling direction of orthodox

medicine is profits and earnings per share, not on what is best for

their patients, either in terms of " total life " or " quality of life. "

Until that paradigm changes, there will be never be a significant

improvement in the orthodox cancer treatments that reach your doctor's

office regardless of what discoveries are made.

 

When a new discovery is made, the only question that is asked is this:

" is it profitable enough? " If the answer is 'no' the treatment is

buried. Now perhaps you know why medical costs continue to skyrocket

through the roof.

 

But it gets worse. This same concept applies to medical theory. The

medical establishment, which not only controls which treatments

doctors will use, also control what medical " theories " doctors will

believe and apply!! They will pick the medical theories that deliver

the most profits for Big Pharma and the AMA's doctors.

 

These absurd medical theories then control the research direction and

research money. In other words, the lust for profits controls the

research money. Perhaps the reader can understand why people like John

D. Rockefeller, Sr. were so anxious to set up foundations to control

the direction of medical research. Their " generous " contributions had

nothing to do with any concern for humanity, they wanted to control

medical research.

 

The AMA and medical schools make sure doctors are totally ignorant of

the applications of medical theories such as: the body's electrical

systems, the importance of pH/alkalinity, the danger of fungi, moulds,

etc. in the blood, phytonutrients, glyconutrients,

vitamins/antioxidants, electromagnetic treatments, oxygen treatments,

chlorophyll, and so on. These are theories that are not profitable

enough, yet they lead to far more effective treatments than the highly

profitable orthodox " theory " and treatments!!

 

When a spectacular discovery is made, the FDA or AMA shuts the clinic

or lab down, the media suppresses both the discovery and the shutting

down of the clinic, etc. How is the discovery going to be distributed

among the public? It won't be. Big Pharma and the AMA have blocked all

channels of communication!!

 

I am absolutely stunned when I review cancer research reports on the

internet that are made public. When a new natural nutrient is found

that is proven to kill cancer cells or stop the spread of cancer, do

they ask whether this nutrient can be used in a natural treatment for

cancer? Of course not. The first question that is asked is this: " how

can we mutate and synthesize this nutrient, patent it, and make it

into a profitable drug? "

 

Ponder that last paragraph carefully because it is the heart and soul

of modern medicine. Find a natural substance that cures something,

bury this fact, then fabricate, synthesize, and mutate the key natural

substance, then patent the mutation, and make huge profits. That is

why there is " no scientific evidence " for alternative treatments, no

one is looking because they cannot be patented and thus are not

profitable enough.

 

As an example, consider this quote:

 

" The first development in this research using chemically altered

DIM [diindolylmethane, a natural compound derived from certain

vegetables] from broccoli came when the growth of breast cancer cells

was inhibited in laboratory studies. Subsequent research showed these

compounds also inhibited growth of pancreatic, colon, bladder and

ovarian cancer cells in culture, Safe said. Limited trials on lab mice

and rats have produced the similar results, he noted.

 

Safe said the research began by considering compounds that protect

a person from developing cancer. After a stream of articles from other

researchers extolling the scientific evidence that cruciferous

vegetables prevent cancer, Safe and his team wondered whether the

similar compounds could be developed for treatment of cancer. They

looked at the mechanism - how the compounds block cancer cell growth -

and found that they target PPAR gamma, a protein that is highly active

in fat cells. This same PPAR gamma is over-expressed in many tumors

and tumor cells and is a potential target for new drugs, he said.

Safe's lab chemically modified " natural " DIM to give a series of

compounds that target the PPAR gamma and stop the growth of cancer. "

http://psa-rising.com/eatingwell/broccoli_DIM_jan_2004.htm

 

Wait a minute - why " modify " a natural substance that works perfectly

well? Why not research how this natural substance can be used in a

natural treatment for cancer? The answer is that it is not profitable

enough.

 

If you are accounting savvy, consider this: because of patents, Big

Pharma can charge any price they want to for a drug. This means that

when they calculate the price of a drug they can first take into

account how much it will cost them to bribe Congressmen, bribe public

officials, control the media, control the AMA, control the ACS, pay

" gifts " to individual doctors, etc. In other words, they can first

calculate their expected costs for these things, then come up with a

price for their drugs.

 

Here is a quote from the modern version of the Hippocratic Oath: " I

will follow that method of treatment which according to my ability and

judgment, I consider for the benefit of my patient and abstain from

whatever is harmful or mischievous. " Somehow, investment advisors seem

to be the only ones who benefit from modern medicine.

 

Now let's go back and talk about the Budwig cancer diet, which used

two Nobel Prize discoveries in its development. It seems that modern

medicine, with their billions of dollars of " research " money has not

yet found a way to safely and inexpensively use these two Nobel Prize

discoveries of the 1930s. But Johanna Budwig, by herself, was able to

cure cancer with the two discoveries. Here is another question: " Do

you think that the pharmaceutical industry and medical community are

willing to forgo many billions of dollars of annual profits by looking

for a safe and inexpensive way to use these discoveries? "

 

In fact there have been numerous medical doctors who used nutrition

and supplements to treat cancer who had far higher " total life " cure

rates on terminal cancer patients than any current orthodox

treatment!! But the direction of cancer " research " is not to improve

these natural treatments and determine why they work so well, but the

direction of research is to test " theories " that lead to more

profitable treatments!!!

Other Diseases

 

Big Pharma and the AMA learned long ago that the path to massive

profits is to treat symptoms. By treating symptoms you have not

" cured " the patient, you have simply perpetuated the disease in the

most profitable way.

 

So it should come as no surprise that the same government and medical

corruption that is going on relative to cancer is also going on

relative to heart disease, arthritis, asthma, psychological problems,

Alzheimer's and many other diseases.

 

As just one example, let us talk about Alzheimer's/dementia. There are

many different causes of Alzheimer's and dementia. In fact it is a

wide range of different diseases. However, there is one cause of

Alzheimer's and dementia that Big Pharma and the AMA would rather you

not know about. In fact, it may be the cause of the majority of cases

of Alzheimer's and dementia.

 

This cause has been known about for many years: heavy metals in the

body. In fact, when Rome was the world's greatest power, it is now

known that the lead in their wine glasses, and the lead in their water

conduits, caused severe mental illness among Rome's elite.

 

Not only has the major cause of Alzheimer's been known about for

decades, there has been a cure for this cause of Alzheimer's since

1952 - it is called EDTA chelation. But EDTA chelation is not

profitable enough for orthodox medicine. It is not that EDTA chelation

is not expensive, it is expensive. The problem is that it cures the

patient too quickly, and it does not treat the symptoms of

Alzheimer's. In short, it is not profitable enough for Big Pharma and

it is not " sophisticated " enough, meaning it is too simple.

 

Let's first talk about what may be the major the cause of

Alzheimer's/dementia:

 

" In large measure, those martyred by dementia are showing the

results of toxicity from mercury, aluminum, lead, cadmium, arsenic and

other heavy metals. Their neurons have been poisoned. They are turned

into Alzheimer's victims directly through the efforts of dentists who

blindly follow the party line of their trade union organisation, the

[American Dental Association]. "

Dr Casdorph, M.D.

 

It turns out that the American Dental Association (ADA) is just as

corrupt as the Alzheimer's Association, the AMA, the American Cancer

Society, ad nauseum. Let us continue:

 

" Worldwide, conservatively, more than 20 million people have

iatrogenic diseases caused by one medical specialty: dentists. The ADA

is fighting a rear guard action to keep the public from learning that

dentists, by use of mercury-silver amalgam fillings for decades, have

poisoned more than 85 per cent of our population. The ADA has covered

up its culpability in the same way breast implant and cigarette

manufacturers deny disease connection to those products. Potential

economic liability to amalgam manufacturers, their distributors,

dentists and the ADA is incalculable. "

Tom Warren

 

" Three thousand doctors of the Toxicology Society came together at

a medical conference in Seattle, Washington, several years ago to

condemn mercury-silver amalgam fillings. Their revelations should have

made banner front page headlines all around the world. Just three

short stories appeared in the Press. "

Tom Warren

 

Now let's talk about the cure:

 

" The Alzheimer's type of dementia does respond rather well to

[EDTA] chelation therapy. Fifteen Alzheimer's disease patients, in a

private clinical setting, were tested first, then administered

chelation therapy, and were observed by loved ones to have returned to

normal, or near normal, functioning. It was a gratifying experience

for everyone involved with the testing and treatment: diagnostitians,

clinicians, health care technicians, the patients, plus their family

and friends. "

Dr Casdorph, M.D. & Dr Morton Walker

 

Everyone was gratified except Big Pharma. For more information on

dementia, see: http://curezone.com/dental/dental_alzheimer.asp

 

Newer products, such as aspartame, MSG, hydrolyzed vegetable protein

(HVP), cysteine, and others, are nipping at the heals of heavy metals

for the title of doing the most damage to human brains and causing

birth defects. The problem with these items, however, is that they

kill brain cells, and thus cannot be reversed.

 

Note: Speaking of aspartame, if you know someone who is pregnant, or

may become pregnant, have them read this article immediately:

 

As a side note, aspartame, dental amalgam, and trans-fatty acids may

all be major causes of cancer.

 

Aspartame is known to be a major cause of brain cancer, especially in

young people under 40, who grew up on aspartame. Every time a person

drinks a diet soda some of their brain cells are killed.

 

The mercury in dental amalgam is known to severely suppress the

immunity system. In many cases cancer is nothing but a symptom of a

suppressed immunity system.

 

Trans-fatty acids are rigid molecules that stick to the sides of cell

walls (in place of the flexible cholesterol molecules). This rigidity

causes a cell to be unable to absorb large molecules, such as insulin

(trans-fatty acids are perhaps the leading cause of Type II diabetes)

and oxygen clusters (oxygen travels throughout the body in clusters).

Because oxygen clusters cannot get into the cells, the trans-fatty

acids may cause the cells to become anaerobic, which is the first step

to a cell becoming cancerous.

 

Here is another gift from the corrupt ADA. Dental root canals create a

state of perpetual infection in the body. This infection suppresses

(i.e. consumes) the immunity system. A suppressed immunity system can

lead to cancer.

 

Not only is modern " medicine " intentionally suppressing the knowledge

and use of effective treatments for cancer and other diseases, they

are also intentionally suppressing the knowledge of the major causes

of cancer and many other diseases. In fact these two things are highly

related. They suppress knowledge of the causes, which in turn allows

them to focus their " theories " on treating the symptoms of disease,

which in turn allows them to suppress effective treatments. It is just

as important for Big Pharma and the AMA to suppress the true causes of

disease as it is for them to suppress the true cures for disease. That

is one of the reasons why the FDA refuses to admit that cancer is a

nutritional or metabolic disease.

 

The single most dominant cause of cancer may be the way the soil is

destroyed by over-farming and chemical fertilizing, coupled with food

processing and the meat, dairy and sugar centered " Western " diet of

Americans. If the soil is nutritionally " sick " (e.g. virtually zero

trace elements), the plants grown in that soil will also be

nutritionally " sick, " and the people that eat those plants will be

nutritionally sick. My father (who won a Congressional Medal of Honor

for his work with the Public Health Service) was warning me about the

soil over 40 years ago!! Dr. Max Gerson was warning people about the

soil over 50 years ago!!

 

But you won't hear Big Pharma or the AMA campaigning to get the soil

fixed or to correct the basic flaws in the American diet.

 

Let us talk about cholesterol drugs. A good friend of mine was in the

hospital because of quadruple bypass surgery. I asked him how long he

had been taking cholesterol drugs before his surgery. He said about

six years. For six years he had been taking cholesterol reducing

drugs, then had a quadruple bypass. What is wrong with this picture?

 

Another friend of mine went to the doctor feeling fine. His

cholesterol level was 195 and the doctor was quite pleased with this.

A week later he had a heart attack and a quintuple bypass.

 

What is wrong with these pictures? In fact there are many scientific

studies (which were not funded by Big Pharma) which have shown little,

if any, relationship between cholesterol and heart disease. But

cholesterol drugs are enormously profitable to Big Pharma. This is yet

another case of " who funded the study? " See my article on cancer and

heart disease prevention for links, and check this book about natural

heart disease prevention.

 

As one of scores of examples of absurd double-standards done by our

corrupt government, consider that over a 10 year period the FDA claims

the herb Ephedra killed approximately 155 Americans. Ephedra competes

with profitable products like Claritin. During the same 10 years, the

tobacco industry killed approximately 4 million Americans. Tobacco is

allowed to be sold because of " warning labels. " But rather than allow

" warning labels " on ephedra bottles (for those with high blood

pressure or other heart problems) Ephedra was banned by the FDA. In

other words, tobacco, which killed 4 million Americans can still be

sold, but ephedra, which killed 155 Americans, was banned.

Especially For Those Who Don't Have Cancer

 

People who don't have cancer rarely give cancer a second thought. All

their life they have been conditioned to believe that the medical

community is diligently making progress in the " War Against Cancer. "

They believe there is nothing to worry about. If they get cancer, the

medical community will take good care of them. All of this is an

assumption that could cost a person their life!

 

When a person is diagnosed with cancer, they are in a total state of

hysteria and panic. They will grab at the first " rope " that is thrown

to them. Guess what, orthodox practitioners are more than happy to

throw them that rope.

 

When a person is told they have cancer, the medical establishment

forcefully tells them that they immediately need to have surgery, and

usually tells them they will need to have chemotherapy and radiation.

This was drilled into your medical doctor while he or she was in

medical school - but it is a giant lie. Doctors frequently will

schedule surgery for a patient before telling them they have cancer!

 

If you are not prepared, in advance, for the utter terror of being

told you have cancer, and to the enormous pressure of orthodox

medicine, you will end up being cut open and probably have toxic

sludge put into your arteries. You will get sick, your immunity system

will be destroyed, you will wish you were dead, and it is all for

nothing, because orthodox treatments for cancer are worthless and

almost always do far more damage than good. And all of this will

happen before you knew what hit you.

 

Furthermore, and understand this carefully, doctors will not tell you

your options, especially your alternative cancer treatment options. If

they mention alternative treatments, they are talking about using

nutrition and natural substances to treat the symptoms of chemotherapy

and radiation, (i.e. complementary medicine), they are not talking

about the alternative cancer treatments this web site discusses.

 

Many cancer patients think, when they hear about complementary

medicine, that orthodox medicine and alternative medicine have joined

forces in a cozy relationship. The relationship is more like a lion

and a lamb. Big Pharma allows limited use of natural substances to

treat the symptoms of chemotherapy so patients will not drop out of

chemotherapy due to sickness. No doubt their motivation is so that the

patient will stay on chemotherapy longer, and thus Big Pharma will

make more profits.

 

But what if you are diagnosed with cancer and you haven't done your

homework? You might consider telling your doctor you will " think about

the proposed treatments " for a couple of weeks. You might buy time by

asking your doctor to produce scientific articles that prove the

proposed treatment extends the " total life " of similar cancer patients

compared to patients who refused all treatments. (Warning: Do not get

duped by letting your doctor talk about " 5-year cure rates. " )

 

During those two weeks, do not go to work. Spend those weeks studying

this web site, then go to other web sites I link to. Do absolutely

nothing but read during those two weeks.

 

The main thing you need to look for are testimonials. It is the

testimonials, not the scientific evidence, that will convince you that

alternative treatments really work. It is exactly for this reason that

the medical establishment does not consider testimonials as

" scientific evidence. " But they are scientific evidence - powerful

evidence, but they don't lead to the conclusions the medical

establishment wants you come to.

Do You Know Someone With Cancer?

 

Many of the people who read this article are trying to decide whether

to tell someone they know, who has cancer, about this web site. It is

a far easier decision than you think. Don't make their decisions for

them!!!! Tell them about this web site and let them decide what to do

about it!

 

I know you love the person and want what is best for them. That is

good, but a person with cancer has a right to know their options and

to make their own decisions. It is their life at stake, let them make

the hard decisions. It is the person with cancer who needs to know

their options.

Cancer Prevention

 

Due to the American lifestyle and diet, toxins in the air we breathe

and foods we eat, due to the way food is commercially prepared, the

additives put into food, the way nutrients are not replaced in the

soil by farmers, etc., the percentage of people who get cancer has

been steadily increasing over the past several decades. It is still

rising.

 

Because of this fact many people are concerned about cancer

prevention. There are many, many different diet plans to help prevent

cancer. Many of the plans are designed to build general health, but

they are not designed by people who understand what foods and

nutrients are best suited to build the specific parts of the immunity

system that deal with cancer, kill cancer cells or inhibit the spread

of cancer. Even some of the plans designed by nutritionists fail to

take into account what foods and nutrients can actually treat cancer.

 

Since all people have new cancer cells forming every day, and because

our Western lifestyle is not helping the matter very much, it seems

reasonable that the cancer prevention diets designed by people who

believe in, and understand, alternative treatments for cancer, would

be the best.

 

A cancer prevention diet should be designed to kill cancer cells,

build the right parts of the immunity system, stop the spread of

cancer and help prevent heart disease. The free, online eBook by Jon

Barron is a good candidate for a cancer prevention diet. I link to a

summary of his book from the main web page in the treatment articles

section (article #2). I also have an article on cancer and heart

disease prevention on this web site which would be a good baseline to

judge other cancer prevention diets against.

 

It turns out, by some strange coincidence, that a very good

alternative cancer prevention program is also a very good alternative

heart disease prevention program.

 

But there is more to it than that. The same substances keep showing up

over and over again as major causes of a wide variety of diseases. A

short list of man-made substances (e.g. aspartame, trans-fatty acids,

mercury poison from dental amalgam, etc.) turn out to be the major

causes of diseases such as: cancer, heart disease, depression, Type I

diabetes, Type II diabetes, birth defects, etc.

Let's Take Off the Sugar Coating

 

While not everyone who chooses alternative treatments survives their

cancer, you might be interested to know the four main reasons why many

people on alternative cancer treatments die:

 

First, most people who go on alternative treatments have had their

body severely damaged by orthodox treatments (e.g. surgery,

chemotherapy and radiation) and:

 

* one of the vital organs of the patient was dead by the time

orthodox medicine got through with them,

* the patient's choice of alternative treatments was not strong

enough to overcome the damage done by chemotherapy and radiation, or

* there simply wasn't enough time left after orthodox treatments

were finished to cure their cancer.

 

Second, most people who go on alternative treatments have to treat

themselves because the AMA will not allow orthodox doctors to treat

cancer patients with natural substances (except to treat the symptoms

of chemotherapy). Without such professional help, there are many

mistakes made in the self-treatment.

 

Third, the National Cancer Institute, the Food and Drug

Administration, and other totally corrupt government agencies, have

suppressed the truth about which alternative cancer treatments are

best at treating which kinds of cancers (e.g. " total life " rates).

Without good information, there are many mistakes made in the

self-treatment.

 

Fourth, the media has totally sold its soul to Big Pharma's massive

advertising money. No one should ever think for one minute that the

media exists to provide truth or " investigate " corruption. The media

exists to serve their masters - their advertisers - period. Because of

this the average person is totally brainwashed into believing in

orthodox medicine and the person never thinks to look into alternative

medicine until after they are sent home to die. But the reality is

that the vast majority of cancer patients who took orthodox treatments

and died never knew that alternative cancer treatments even existed.

You can thank the media for that.

 

Does the fact that many people using alternative cancer treatments die

each year because of these four items mean that alternative cancer

treatments are worthless? Don't be absurd. As I have said above, if

there were no corruption in medicine, government, etc. the overall

cure rate for cancer would be over 99% - and that is assuming no one

used any type of orthodox treatments!!

 

You will note from the above list that all four items (and other items

I have not listed) are caused by corruption and a total lack of

integrity in the medical community, media, charities, medical schools,

and government sectors of our society. But calling it " corruption " is

sugar coating the problem. Even calling it a " scam " is being generous.

 

In the 1700s and 1800s the doctors did not have the technology we have

today. As far as I know, the doctors of the 1700s and 1800s did the

best they could, with the technology they had access to. If that is

true, bravo to them.

 

But that is not true today. Starting no later than the 1920s there was

a massive change in the integrity of medicine. Many blame the change

on John Davison Rockefeller, Sr., who used his vast fortune to corrupt

the medical schools and AMA in order to make more money from his

petroleum products (now called pharmaceutical products), and perhaps

that is where the corruption started. But that is not where it ended!!

 

Before going on, let me introduce a short story:

Two Men In the Desert

 

Suppose two men are in the desert. One of them, Brad, has spent many

years visiting this particular desert and knows it perfectly well.

Gene, however, has never been in this desert before. Now let us

suppose that these two men are business competitors. The death of

either one of them will lead to major price increases, major sales

increases, and millions of dollars in profits for the surviving

competitor.

 

Suppose these two men take a long trip in the desert and Gene

collapses and is dying of thirst. Suppose Gene asks Brad where the

nearest water hole is. Brad knows perfectly well where the nearest

water hole is, it is 200 yards to the East of where they are. Brad

ponders the situation. He notes to himself that Gene is one of his

business competitors, and if Gene dies, he will make millions of

dollars in profits.

 

Brad tells Gene that the water hole is 200 yards to the West of where

they are. Gene crawls the 200 yards to the West and then dies before

he can find a water hole.

 

End of Story

 

Brad did not shoot Gene, he did not stab him, he did not poison him,

rather he lied to him. His lie led to Gene's death. This intentional

deception led to the death of Gene and made Brad a multi-millionaire

in this story.

 

Brad's lie was in two parts. The first part was that he withheld

lifesaving information that did not allow Gene to head in the correct

direction. The second part was that what he told Gene was deceptive,

causing Gene to head in the wrong direction.

 

What Brad did was murder. I call this type of abstract (i.e.

non-physical), white collar murder: " murder by deception. " When people

think about murder they rarely, if ever, think about " murder by

deception. " That is interesting because the law will put a person in

jail for " theft by deception. " Our laws are more interested in

protecting the money of stockholders than in protecting the lives of

citizens.

 

Now let us get back to the Cancer Industry.

 

They do everything in their power to withhold lifesaving information

about alternative treatments for cancer, thus causing people to not

head in the right direction for treatment. This is equivalent to Brad

suppressing the information that the water hole was to the East.

 

They do everything in their power to publish deceptive statistics

about orthodox cancer treatments, thus causing people to head in the

wrong direction for treatment. That is equivalent to Brad telling Gene

to head to the West.

 

Shall we accuse many of those in the Cancer Industry of the abstract,

white collar " murder by deception? " God will be the judge (not the

Supreme Court) using HIS laws (not our laws).

 

But I will tell you a secret about Judgment Day. Corporations,

governments, government agencies, etc. are nothing but a piece of

paper. No piece of paper ever spoke. No piece of paper ever lied. No

piece of paper ever ordered a cancer clinic to be shut down. No piece

of paper ever did a bogus scientific study. No piece of paper will be

judged on Judgment Day. It is people that speak, that lie, that order

clinics to be shut down, who do bogus scientific studies, etc.

 

Unlike our corrupt legal system (which was influenced by corrupt

corporate executives seeking to protect themselves), on Judgment Day

no one will be able to hide behind a piece of paper. Big Pharma has

not figured out a way to bribe God - nor will they.

 

" The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid " dens of crime "

that Dickens loved to paint. It is not done even in concentration

camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is

conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried and minuted) in clean,

carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white

collars and cut fingernails, and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need

to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is

something like... the offices of a thoroughly nasty business concern.

C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters

 

It is impossible to comprehend the sadism of modern medicine. Even

after the medical community and Big Pharma have siphoned off all the

money they can get from a patient and his/her insurance company, even

after the doctors have sent their patient home to die, the AMA and

Congress will still not allow a medical doctor to cure this patient

with alternative medicine. The reason? If they did allow it, it would

not be long before the benefits of alternative medicine would be

publicly known.

 

In the exact sense that Hitler wanted to kill every Jew in the world

(his true " Final Solution " ), the vipers of Big Pharma and Company want

to destroy every semblance of alternative medicine, both theory,

practitioners and products, in order to increase their " earnings per

share " and massive executive salaries. There is no difference between

Hitler and Big Pharma except superficial ones. It is sad how many

thousands of health professionals gladly follow their masters, with

open hands, down to hell.

 

Modern doctors cannot be compared to their predecessors who used

leaches and scarificators, but rather they must be compared by future

historians to those who tortured the rebellious during the dark ages.

Indeed, while our civilization's technology has progressed beyond the

dark ages, our " leaders " are quickly leading us back into the

feudalism of the dark ages.

America's Real Enemies

 

There is a real war between orthodox medicine and alternative

medicine. It is a war of information. It is a war about people knowing

their options. People don't think of a " war of information " as being a

" real war " because in information wars the weapons are money, control

of the media, bribery and corruption.

 

People say, a " real war " has soldiers in uniform, guns, tanks, jet

airplanes, rockets, and so on. I have a comment about that. In the

past 100 years, more people have died from the intentional, willful

suppression of information, than have died as a result of every

military war in the world during the same time period! America has

more deadly enemies from within its corporations and politicians, than

from all of our outside enemies combined.

 

" America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter

and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. "

Abraham Lincoln

 

The wars of information within our own borders are far more deadly and

dangerous to our lives and freedoms than the external enemies of

America. It may appear that America is in grave danger from the

outside, but by far America's most serious danger is treason within

its own borders. The deaths caused by Big Pharma are only a symptom of

a much graver danger and a much bigger war of information.

 

" A nation can survive its fools and even the ambitious. But it

cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less

formidable, for he is known and he carries his banners openly against

the city. But the traitor moves among those within the gates freely,

his sly whispers rustling through all alleys, heard in the very halls

of government itself. For the traitor appears no traitor; he speaks in

the accents familiar to his victim, and he wears their face and their

garments and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts

of all men. He rots the soul of a nation; he works secretly and

unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city; he infects

the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less

to be feared. The traitor is the plague. "

Marcus Tullius Cicero, Roman Orator - 106-43 B.C.

 

How do the traitors prevent the American public from figuring out what

is really going on? My online eBook talks about many of their tactics.

Here is just one of the ways they get away with it - the traitors

distract our attention from their treason, and make it appear like

they are the heroes:

 

" Our government has kept us in a perpetual state of fear -- kept

us in a continuous stampede of patriotic fervor -- with the cry of

grave national emergency ... Always there has been some terrible evil

to gobble us up if we did not blindly rally behind it by furnishing

the exorbitant sums demanded. Yet, in retrospect, these disasters seem

never to have happened, seem never to have been quite real. "

General Douglas MacArthur, 1957

 

What Needs To Be Done

 

It is time to let Congress know how sick and tired the American people

are at the absolute corruption in government. It is time to let

Congress know that the murder of hundreds of thousands of Americans a

year by the tobacco industry, pharmaceutical industry and chemical

industries is unacceptable.

 

It is time to get new leadership across the board in the medical

community. It is time to get leaders who have integrity. It is time to

get leaders who expect the individual doctors to strictly obey their

oaths.

 

It is time to pass federal laws which supercede the authority of the

AMA. Laws which allow any patient the option to have his or her

medical doctor use any type of treatment the patient wants (Freedom of

Choice in Medicine).

 

It is also time to abolish all of our totally corrupt government

agencies. It is time to eliminate all possible avenues of power by

which corporations can easily manipulate our government officials.

 

It is time to throw pharmaceutical industry board members and

executives in jail for mass murder. It is time to throw the corrupt

government employees in jail who have aided the fight against

alternative medicine.

 

" The person who has ideas and carries out reforms will find

himself embattled by those whose profits and privileges will be

threatened by those reforms. But those who will stand to gain (most)

from those reforms quite often do nothing ... and this is the greatest

impediment to change. "

Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince (paraphrased, published 1515)

 

It is time to divert the billions of dollars of cancer research money

in the direction of alternative cancer treatment, under the control of

those who have integrity and want to know the truth.

 

The lust for money, power and prestige in medicine today has led to

consequences that are inexcusable. If doctors wanted to know the truth

about alternative medicine they could easily accomplish that task!!

But 80 years of consistent evidence proves that they have no interest

in understanding the cause of disease or in natural treatments for

disease.

 

" It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his

salary depends upon his not understanding it. "

Upton Sinclair

 

The doctors of one hundred years from now will look at this generation

of " doctors " in total disgust. It is totally inexcusable that an

entire " profession " has absolutely no interest in their patients,

absolutely zero integrity and no interest in cleaning house. Modern

day doctors are knowingly riding the wave of corruption in medicine

and milking it for all the money they can get, while it is still in

place. Some people don't have to wait 100 years to be disgusted.

 

In the war in medicine, there is virtually no integrity and even less

bravery.

 

" Cowards do not count in battle; they are there, but not in it. "

Euripides (480 or 485-406 B.C.) - Meleager. Frag 523

 

To those of you with cancer you have few friends in the medical

community. Most want your money and quite frankly, couldn't care less

what happens to you. You are on your own. You must do your homework

yourself.

 

For those with cancer, your next logical step is to read the tutorial,

which is " Step 2. " For those of you who do not have cancer, read the

tutorial anyway, then read the article: " Phase 3: Cancer Prevention

Plus Heart Disease Prevention " in Step 6. See Cancer Tutor for these

articles.

 

Copyright © 2003, 2004, R. Webster Kehr, all rights reserved. This

article may be downloaded, stored on the internet, printed, or emailed

to others, as long as it is not modified in any way and this copyright

remains intact.