HOW SCIENTIFIC ARE ORTHODOX CANCER TREATMENTS?

[Guest guest]

Treatment often causes more misery than the disease itself and in most cases

is unsuccessful (THE CANCER CONSPIRACY by John J. Moelaert)

 

HOW SCIENTIFIC ARE ORTHODOX CANCER TREATMENTS?

_http://www.health-science-spirit.com/cancerscience.html_

(http://www.health-science-spirit.com/cancerscience.html)

By Walter Last

 

The medical profession takes much pride in the rigorous scientific research

that underpins its approach to cancer treatment. Someone newly diagnosed with

cancer faces enormous pressure from our health care system to start

immediately on a scientific medical treatment program that involves surgery,

chemotherapy and radiation in various combinations. Being fearful and in shock,

most

individuals in this situation are no match for the overwhelming power of

medical authority.

 

How would you react in this situation? You may be leaning towards natural

therapies for simple health problems but for something as serious as cancer you

may feel safer with the tested and proven methods of orthodox medical care.

Nevertheless, if you have the chance, read the following before you make your

final decision. You may then have a better appreciation of natural cancer

treatment.

 

In this article I have assembled some little known facts about the science

behind orthodox cancer treatment. In cancer research, success (expressed as a

five-year survival rate) is established by comparing other forms and

combinations of treatment with the results from surgery alone. However, the

success

rate of surgery has rarely been compared with the survival rates of untreated

patients, and never with patients who adopted natural therapies. Therefore,

orthodox cancer treatment is inherently unscientific. The overall supposed

cure rate is not higher than can be accounted for by spontaneous remissions and

the placebo effect.

 

In support of my position I offer the following key statements and

conclusions from medical and scientific publications.

 

“Studies appear to show that early intervention is helpful, because

pre-cancerous lesions are included in early removals that frequently would not

become

cancerous if left untouched.†In other words, early intervention appears

helpful because lesions are removed that are not cancerous but they are counted

as being cancer, and that improves survival statistics. “Also, it does not

matter how much or how little of a breast is removed; the outcome is always the

same “(1). This statement indicates that surgery does not improve survival

chances; otherwise there would be a difference between radical surgery and

lumpectomy.

 

Researchers said it is complacent to continue subjecting at least 70% of

women with breast cancer to a futile mutilating procedure (2). Furthermore,

there is no evidence that early mastectomy affects survival; if patients knew

this then they would most likely refuse surgery (3).

 

In 1993 the editor of The Lancet pointed out that despite various

modifications of breast cancer treatment, death rates remain unchanged. He

acknowledges

that despite the almost weekly releases of miracle breakthroughs, the

medical profession with its extraordinary capacity for self-delusion (his

words,

not mine) in all truth has lost its way. At the same time he rejects those who

now believe that salvation will come from increasing chemotherapy after

surgery to just below the rate where it kills the patient. Instead, he

continues, “

would it not be more scientific to ask why our approach has failed?†Not too

soon to ask this question after a century of mutilating women, I would say.

The title of this editorial, appropriately, is Breast cancer: have we lost

our way? (4).

 

Basically all types and combinations of conventional breast cancer treatment

appear to result in the same low long-term survival rates. The only

conclusion that can be drawn from this is that conventional treatment does not

improve long-term survival rates. Even worse, Michael Baum, M.D., a leading

British

breast cancer surgeon, found that breast cancer surgery tends to increase

the risk of relapse or death within three years. He also linked surgery to the

accelerated spread of cancer, which it does by forming metastases in other

parts of the body (5).

 

An earlier German comparison found that untreated post-menopausal women with

breast cancer lived longer than treated women, and the recommendation was

not to treat postmenopausal women for breast cancer (6).

 

This conclusion confirms a finding by Ernst Krokowski, a German professor of

radiology. He demonstrated conclusively that metastasis is commonly

triggered by medical intervention, including sometimes even by a biopsy or

surgery

unrelated to the cancer (7). Disturbance of a tumor causes a greatly increased

number of cancer cells to enter the bloodstream, while most medical

intervention (especially chemotherapy) suppresses the immune system. This

combination

is a recipe for disaster. It is metastases that kill while primary tumors in

general, and those in the breast in particular, can be relatively harmless.

These findings have been confirmed by recent research, which shows that

surgery, even if unrelated to the cancer, can trigger an explosive spread of

metastases and lead to an untimely end (8).

 

This follows earlier reports that radical surgery for prostate cancer also

tends to spread the disease. Actually, prostate cancer was investigated in the

first randomized clinical trials for any type of cancer. After 23 years

there was no difference in the survival rates of those who had surgery and

controls (who did not) but those with surgery suffered more morbidity such as

impotence or incontinence (9).

 

The late H B Jones, Professor of Medical Physics, was a leading US cancer

statistician. He said in a speech before the American Cancer Society that no

study had proven that early intervention improves the chances of survival. On

the contrary, his studies prove conclusively that untreated cancer victims

live up to four times longer, and with better quality of life than treated

ones.

Needless to say, he was not invited again (10).

 

Massaging Statistics

 

A recent epidemiological study confirmed the questionable value of

conventional therapy by concluding that 'medical interventions for cancer have

had a

negligible or no effect on survival' (11). Even the conservative New England

Journal of Medicine had an article with the headline: Cancer Undefeated (12).

 

Common ways to make medical statistics look more favorable are as follows.

Patients who die during prolonged treatment with chemotherapy or radiotherapy

are not counted in the statistics, because they did not receive the full

treatment. In the control group everyone who dies is counted. Further, success

is

judged by the percentage of temporary tumor shrinking, regardless of

survival times; if survival is measured, then only in terms of dying from the

treated disease. It is not normally shown how many of the patients die due to

the

treatment itself. The current trend is to pick up pre-cancerous conditions

very early and treat them as cancer. While this statistically increases the

number of people with cancer, it also artificially prolongs survival times and

lowers death rates, thereby making medical treatments appear to be more

successful. However, there may also be a genuine component of improved

survival, as

increasing numbers of cancer patients opt for additional natural therapies.

 

An investigation of the records of 1.2 million cancer patients revealed that

the death rate attributed to non-cancer death shortly after treatment was

200 per cent higher than would normally be expected. Two years after diagnosis

and treatment this excess death rate had fallen to 50%. The most common cause

for the excess death was listed as heart and respiratory failure. This means

instead of dying several years later of cancer, these patients died from the

effects of the treatment and helped greatly improve the cancer statistics

because they did not strictly die of cancer (13). This misleading reporting of

cancer deaths has led to demands for more honest statistics (14).

 

After an analysis of several large mammogram-screening studies found that

mammography screening leads to more aggressive treatment with no survival

benefits (15), even the editor of the Lancet had to admit that there is no

reliable evidence from large randomized trials to support mammography screening

programs (15). The significance of this statement goes far beyond the use of

mammograms. It is openly acknowledged by the proponents of conventional

medicine

that they have no effective way of helping patients with advanced cancer.

Until now the catch-cry always was 'detect it early then it can be cured'.

These

mammogram evaluation studies demonstrate that it does not matter when cancer

is detected, the conventional methods, and with this the whole multi-billion

dollar cancer industry, are useless (my conclusion).

 

A 13-year Canadian study with 40,000 women compared physical breast

examinations with examinations plus mammograms. The mammogram group had many

more

lumpectomies and surgeries, and the death rate was 107 deaths in the

mammography

group and 105 in the physical examination group (16).

 

Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is a common non-invasive form of breast

tumor. Most cases of DCIS are detected through the use of mammography; in

younger

women 92 per cent of all cancers detected by mammography are of this type.

Nevertheless, on average 44%, and in some areas 60%, of these are treated by

mastectomy. As most of these tumors are harmless, this greatly improves

survival statistics (17).

 

While conventional diagnosis is invasive and may help to spread the cancer,

a kind of electrodermal screening, called Biofield test, was developed by a

team from eight European hospitals and universities, and reported in the

Lancet as being 99.1% accurate in diagnosing malignancy in breast tumors (18).

 

A large meta-analysis of radiotherapy results for lung cancer showed that

after 2 years there were 21% more deaths in the group that had radiotherapy in

addition to surgery as compared to those who had surgery alone. The editorial

states that the rationale is to kill any cancer cells remaining after

surgery but it is a shame that the facts do not agree with this theory (19).

 

Chemotherapy - Medical Russian Roulette

 

Chemotherapy for children with leukemia and Hodgkin's disease is the proud

showpiece of the arguably only apparent success of orthodox cancer therapy.

Now a long-term follow-up study shows that such children develop 18 times more

secondary malignant tumors later in life. Even worse, girls face a 75 times

(7,500%) higher risk of breast cancer by the time they are 40 (20). A main

problem appears to be the development of deep or systemic Candida albicans

infections shortly after starting chemotherapy (21). If this is not

appropriately

treated, then relapses or future health problems are likely to occur.

 

Chemotherapy showed a clear dose dependency whereby the incidence of

triggered leukemia doubled between low dose and moderate dose groups and then

quadrupled between the moderate dose and the high dose groups. A study of

ovarian

cancer found that the risk of developing leukemia after treatment with

chemotherapy increased 21 fold or 2100%. Also other tumors commonly develop

after

treating malignancies with chemotherapy (22). In a trial for multiple myeloma

no advantage was found by using chemotherapy as compared to no treatment (23).

 

The respected German biostatician Ulrich Abel presented a comprehensive

analysis of over 3,000 clinical trials on the value of chemotherapy on advanced

carcinoma (for instance breast cancer). Oncologists tend to use chemotherapy

because this may induce a temporary shrinking of the tumor, called a response;

however, it also tends to produce unpleasant side effects. Abel concluded

that there is no direct evidence that chemotherapy prolongs survival in these

cases. Abel states: " Many oncologists take it for granted that response to

therapy prolongs survival, an opinion which is based on a fallacy and which is

not supported by clinical studies " (24). Ralph W. Moss, PhD, in Questioning

Chemotherapy, provides a detailed analysis of this subject. The overall

conclusion of the book is that there is no evidence that chemotherapy extends

life

for the majority of cancers (25).

 

However, even if chemotherapy would extend life for a few months, what about

the quality of this life? Tom Nesi, a former director of public affairs at

the pharmaceutical giant Bristol-Myers Squibb, wrote in the New York Times

about the ‘successful’ treatment of his wife, which statistically extended

her

life for three months (26). Two weeks after the treatment she scribbled on a

notepad: “depressed - no more - please. " I am not surprised about reports

that most oncologists would not use these treatments for their own families.

 

Only recently have oncologists started to acknowledge what patients called “

chemo-brainâ€, a distressing loss of memory and other cognitive functions.

Psychiatrists have now found that cancer and its conventional treatment cause

serious depression in 15 to 25 percent of patients. " The depression itself can

often be worse than the disease " they say (27).

 

 

The Full Treatment

 

Virginia Livingston (later Livingston-Wheeler), a remarkable cancer

researcher and therapist in her book, 'Cancer - A New Breakthrough' (28), gives

an

account of one of the many patients she saw who had come to her only after

receiving the full medical treatment for breast cancer.

 

'After discovering a small breast lump she had radical mastectomy. None of

the lymph nodes removed from the armpit were involved; all of the cancer had

been successfully removed. To make extra sure that there was no re-growth in

the scars, she received radiation treatment, and also her ovaries were taken

out.'

 

'To her dismay, a year later several small nodules appeared in the old

breast scar. Again she received radiation. More lumps appeared on the neck that

called for still more radiation. In addition she received male hormone therapy,

resulting in acne and coarse facial hair. Still the nodules came back. Now

she received chemotherapy with the usual side effects.'

 

'Before her hair could re-grow, pain in her bones was diagnosed as bone

cancer. More chemotherapy and hormone therapy was expected to help. However,

several months later the bone lesions became worse and removal of her adrenal

glands was recommended and performed. Hopefully, that would prolong her

suffering for another year. After that the removal of her pituitary gland might

give

her a further three to six months to live.'

 

'By now her faith in her medical advisers was sufficiently shaken that she

came to Dr Livingston for help. She asked to be examined without her husband

being present, as she wanted to spare him the agony of seeing her naked body,

distorted, mutilated and shrunken with an immensely swollen abdomen and thin

legs. Finally she whispered: " Doctor, shall I kill myself? "

 

A Conspiracy of Silence

 

Why are they doing this? With ‘they’ I am referring to what is commonly

called ‘the cancer establishment’. I believe the answer was given by the

eminent medical commentator and former editor of New Scientist, Dr. Donald

Gould,

in a timeless article called Cancer - A Conspiracy of Silence. The subtitle

summarizes his position: The commonest cancers are as resistant to treatment

today as they were 40 or 50 years ago. Nothing is to be gained by pretending

that the battle against cancer is slowly but surely being won (29).

 

This truth has been deliberately concealed from the general public.

According to Gould, the reason for this conspiracy of silence is money. The

public

must continue to see the Cancer Establishment as a winner to continue providing

money. One of the quoted scientists said that with tens of thousands of

radiologists and millions of dollars in equipment one just gives radiation

treatment even if study after study shows that it does more harm than good.

 

Gould also is of the opinion that patients who could be comfortable without

medical treatment until their inevitable death, with medical treatment are

made miserable in a pointless attempt to postpone death for a few unhappy

weeks. But of course, that is how most of the money is being made. Gould feels

that they poison their patients with drugs and rays and mutilate them with

unnecessary surgery in a desperate attempt to treat the untreatable. Not much

has

changed since Gould wrote this article in 1976. In a recent Moss Report

(April 2004) we can read that long-term survival from common cancers such as

prostate, breast, colorectal and lung " has barely budged since the 1970s " (30).

In

summary, this means that there was no significant improvement in cancer

survival rates in the last 70 to 80 years.

 

The Scientific Basis for Drug Approvals

 

It is also interesting to know the scientific basis for the approval of

cancer drugs. Most of them come initially from the U.S.A. Commonly a company

had

to submit 2 favorable large, randomized trials to obtain FDA approval. ‘

Favorable’ means that there must be a certain rate of tumor shrinkage lasting

for

at least one month. It was not necessary to show that the treatment prolonged

survival, and it was not necessary to submit the results of any unfavorable

trials for the same drug. Now these ‘strict scientific’ guidelines have

been

relaxed, and drug companies can get FDA approval on the basis of small

preliminary trials, even if a large randomized trial may be unfavorable (31). In

a

remarkable statement about drug approvals an FDA spokesperson pointed out

that any delay in approval did not mean unnecessary deaths because " all these

treatments for advanced cancer don't cure people " (32). However, and this is

the important part, an individual cancer drug that does not cure people can

earn billions of dollars for its drug company.

 

Perhaps the situation is even worse than ineffective treatments. A group of

respected researchers reviewed all of the published statistical evidence of

the outcome of medical treatments. It shows that the medical system is now

the leading cause of death and injury in the US. Deaths attributable to heart

disease in 2001 were 699,697, for cancer the figure was 553,251, while for

medical interventions it was 783,936 per year! Appropriately, the title of this

study is ‘Death by Medicine†(33).

 

You may wonder why health authorities turn a blind eye to these massive drug

fatalities, while concentrating their energies instead on suppressing food

supplements and natural remedies. A symptom of this official attitude is the

recent saga of PAN Pharmaceuticals when the government forced the largest

Australian manufacturer of natural remedies into bankruptcy, allegedly because

there was a possibility that some of these products might cause someone to get

sick or even die. I see a main reason for this distorted official attitude

in the fact that health departments and regulatory authorities are dominated

by medical doctors who have been trained, partly with money from drug

companies, to believe that drugs are beneficial and natural remedies

potentially

harmful. Despite a majority of western populations preferring natural remedies,

basically all political parties promote dependency on pharmaceutical drugs.

Therefore, as a first step to change this oppressive political climate we

urgently need a political party that dares to promote natural health care

rather

than drug dependency.

 

We can find a clue for the cause of these appalling “Death by Medicineâ€

statistics in an editorial by Richard Smith in the British Medical Journal.

“Yet

only 15% of medical interventions are supported by solid scientific evidenceâ€

, and “This is because only 1% of the articles in medical journals are

scientifically sound, and partly because many treatments have never been

assessed

at all†(34).

 

A good demonstration of the unscientific nature of medical research is the

recent fiasco with hormone replacement therapy (HRT). Several decades ago it

was shown in “rigorous scientific†research to be safe and effective;

otherwise it would not have been approved. It was strongly promoted to protect

against heart disease and cancer. Now every new trial shows HRT to be dangerous

and increasing the risk of developing heart disease and cancer. What went

wrong, why has this not been picked up earlier? Quite simply, the original

research was conducted with the aim of generating profits, while recent

researchers

are not sharing in any of these profits. Therefore, I mistrust any research

that is conducted with profit in mind. Unfortunately, this presently applies

to most medical research.

 

The War on Cancer

 

It is now 32 years since President Nixon declared the War on Cancer. Since

then $US 2 Trillion has been spent on conventional cancer treatment and

research, with the result that more individuals are dying of cancer than ever

before (35). A similar assessment is given by Clifton Leaf, Executive Editor of

the mainstream Fortune magazine. He asks: " Why have we made so little progress

in the war on cancer? " and continues to point out that the propaganda about

improvement in survival from cancer is largely a myth. Most of the improvement

in longevity of cancer patients is due to life style changes and early

detection. Early detection prolongs the statistical survival time without the

patients living any longer. Even adjusted for age, the percentage of Americans

dying from cancer is about the same as it was in 1950. More Americans will die

of cancer in the next 14 months than have died from every war that the US has

fought combined (36).

 

While there have been studies to evaluate the effects of various nutrients

on different cancers, nothing of these 2 Trillion cancer dollars has been

available for natural therapists to trial holistic cancer therapies. Even worse

for natural therapists, they had to face a century of persecution. A large

number of them was dragged before courts and ended up in jail. Would it not be

more scientific to impartially evaluate the methods of natural cancer

therapists rather than put them in jail?

 

In the U.S. basically all alternative cancer clinics had to relocate to

Mexico. For a list of such clinics worldwide see _www.cancure.org_

(http://www.cancure.org) . A holistic cancer approach includes superior

nutrition, herbs,

electro-medicine and vibrational or energy medicine, emotional healing and mind

therapy.

 

The only reported study that comes close to investigating a holistic

approach involves the Gerson therapy in an evaluation of 5-year survival rates

of

153 melanoma patients. Here 100% of Gerson therapy patients with Stage I and II

Cancers survived, but only 79% with conventional therapy. With Stage III

(regional metastases) the figures, respectively, were 70% and 41%; with Stage

IVa (distant metastases) 39% with Gerson and 6% with conventional therapy (37).

 

Here a few more gems from recent medical publications:

 

The most important advance in cancer diagnosis is needle biopsy, which is

now the standard procedure. Until recently this has just been done on the ‘

scientific’ assumption that it is harmless. Now (in 2004) a team in a

prestigious

US hospital found that 50% of needle biopsies caused metastatic spread of

cancer (38). This means an awful number of patients have died due to this

innocent-looking procedure.

 

" Screening for breast cancer with mammography is unjustified. If the trials

are judged to be unbiased, the data show that for every 1000 women screened

biennially throughout 12 years, one breast cancer death is avoided whereas the

total number of deaths is increased by 6. " (39).

 

A group of leading cancer surgeons (Drs. Baum, Demicheli, Hrushesky and

Retsky) have shown that surgery triggers accelerated growth of metastases. They

point out that from antiquity until relatively recently, surgery was routinely

avoided for women with breast cancer precisely because of fear that surgery

might spread the disease (40).

 

The deputy director of the prestigious Canadian National Breast Screening

Study (C.J. Baines) wrote: " An unacknowledged harm [of screening mammography]

is that for up to 11 years after the initiation of breast cancer screening in

women aged 40-49 years, screened women face a higher death rate from breast

cancer than unscreened control women, although that is contrary to what one

would expect " and " shouldn't women aged 40-49 years know that, 3 years after

screening starts, their chance of death from breast cancer is more than double

that for unscreened control women? (41).

 

The latest prostate cancer screening study (2006) confirmed an earlier study

in 2002 showing that early detection and treatment does not save lives, only

increases discomfort (42).

 

You may be wondering how there can be this contrast between scientific

research and public perception of the benefits of conventional cancer therapy.

The

answer is that research findings are selectively interpreted (spin-doctored)

and promoted (propaganda) by vested interests with easy access to the mass

media.

 

Many natural cancer therapists claim a success rate of more than 90% in

arresting and reversing cancer, provided that patients have not been subjected

to

orthodox treatments before. Most harmful appear to be chemotherapy and

radiotherapy. Therefore, if you are confronted with cancer, I suggest that you

resist acting out of fear and under pressure. The situation is hardly ever so

urgent that you have to act immediately. Instead, do your own research from

books, journals and the Internet, and then trust your common sense or intuition.

 

References

 

1) Skrabanek, P.: False Premises and False Promises of Breast Cancer

Screening. The Lancet 2: 316-19, 1985

(2) Baum, M.: The Curability of Breast Cancer. Br Med J, 1: 439-42, 1976.

(3) Cunningham, L.: Mastectomy for so-called lobular carcinoma in-situ.

Lancet 1: 306, 1980

(4) Editorial: Breast Cancer: Have we lost our way? Lancet 1: 341, 343-44,

1993

(5) Baum, M.: Does surgery disseminate or accelerate cancer? Lancet, 1996

Jan 27; 347(8996): 260

(6) Gregl, A.: Die Lebenserwartung des unbehandelten Mammakarzinoms.: " The

life expectancy of the untreated mamma carcinoma (breast cancer) " Klin Wschr

41, 676, 1963

(7) Krokowski, E.H.: Is the Current Treatment of Cancer Self-Limiting in the

Extent of its Success? J Int Acad Preventive Medicine, 6 (1) 23 – 39, 1979

(8) Tagliabue E et al : Role of HER2 in wound-induced breast carcinoma

proliferation. The Lancet August 16, 2003;362:527-533

(9) Iversen, P. et al.: Radical Prostatectomy versus Expectant Treatment for

Early Carcinoma of the Prostate. Scand J Urol Nephrol 172, 65-72, 1995.

(10) Jones, H.B. Lecture at the American Cancer Society Conference, New

Orleans July 3/1969

(11) McKinlay, J.B. et al.: A Review of the Evidence Concerning the Impact

of Medical Measures on Recent Mortality and Morbidity in the United States.

Int. J. Health Services 19, (23), 181-208, 1989.

(12) Bailar JC III, Gornik H.L.: Cancer undefeated. New England Journal of

Medicine, 336:1569-1574 (1997)

(13) Brown, B.W., C. Brauner and M.C. Minnotte: Noncancer deaths in white

adult cancer patients. J Natl Cancer Inst 85, 979-987, 1993

(14) Welch, H.G., Black, W.C.: Are Deaths Within 1 Month of Cancer-Directed

Surgery Attributed to Cancer? J Natl Cancer Inst 94: 1066-1070, 2002

(15) Olsen, O.; Gotzsche, P.C.: Cochrane review on screening for breast

cancer with mammography. Lancet 2001 Oct 20; 358:1340-2 and Editorial 1284-85

(16) Miller, A.B., et al.: Canadian National Breast Cancer Screening

Study-2: 13-year results of a randomized trial in women aged 50-59 years. J

Natl

Cancer Inst 92, September 20, 2000, pp. 1490-99

(17) Ernster, Virginia L., et al.: Incidence of and treatment for ductal

carcinoma in situ of the breast. Journal of the American Medical Association,

Vol. 275, No. 12, March 27, 1996, pp. 913-18

Page, David L. and Jensen, Roy A.: Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast.

Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 275, No. 12, March 27, 1996,

pp. 948-49

(18) Cuzick, Jack, et al.: Electropotential measurements as a new diagnostic

modality for breast cancer. The Lancet, Vol. 352, August 1, 1998, pp. 359-

63

(19) PORT Meta-analysis Trialists Group: Postoperative radiotherapy in

non-small-cell lung cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis of individual

patient data from nine randomized controlled trials. Lancet 1998 Jul 25;

352(9124): 257-63 and Lancet 1998 Jul 25; 352(9124):250-1

(20) Bhatia, S., Robison, L.L. et al.: Breast cancer and other second

neoplasms after childhood Hodgkin's disease. N Engl J Med. 1996 Mar

21;334(12):745-51.

(21) Klingspor, L., Stintzing, G., Tollemar, J. Deep Candida infection in

children with leukaemia. Acta Paediatr 86 (1) 30-6, 1997

(22) Klein-Szanto, A.J.P.: Carcinogenic effects of chemotherapeutic

compounds. Progress in Clinical and Biological Research, 374, 167-74, 1992.

(23) Riccardi, A., Mora, O.et al.: Long-term survival of stage I multiple

myeloma given chemotherapy just after diagnosis or at progression of the

disease: a multicentre randomized study. Br J Cancer. 2000 Apr; 82(7):1254-60.

(24) Abel U.: Chemotherapy of advanced epithelial cancer: a critical review.

Biomed Pharmacother. 1992; 46(10), 439-52.

(25) Moss, Ralph W.: Questioning Chemotherapy. Equinox Press, Brooklyn, NY,

1995

(26) Nesi, Tom: False hope in a bottle [op-ed], New York Times, June 5/03

(27) Moss, R.W.: THE MOSS REPORTS Newsletter #128 April 11/04

(28) Livingston, Virginia: Cancer: A new Breakthrough. Cancer Book House,

Los Angeles, 1972

(29) Gould, D.: Cancer - a Conspiracy of Silence. New Scientist 2 December

1976

(30) Moss, R.W.: THE MOSS REPORTS Newsletter #127 April 4/04

(31) Moss, R.W.: THE MOSS REPORTS Newsletter #86 (June 7/03)

(32) Moss, R.W.: THE MOSS REPORTS Newsletter #122 February 28/04

(33) Null, G, Dean, C. et al.: Death by Medicine. Nutrition Institute of

America, Nov 2003, _www.NutritionInstituteOfAmerica.org_

(http://www.nutritioninstituteofamerica.org/)

(34) Smith, R., editor: The poverty of medical evidence. BMJ 303, 5 Oct

1991

(35) Sharon Begley.: New statistics show increase in cancer rates, cancer

rates go up, not down. Wall Street Journal, October 16, 2002, B1

(36) Leaf, Clifford. Why we're losing the war on cancer. Fortune 2004

:149(6):76-97..

(37) Hildenbrand, G.L. et al.: Five-year survival rates of melanoma patients

treated by diet therapy after the manner of Gerson: A retrospective review.

Alternative Therapies 1(4): 29-37, Sept 1995

(38) Moss, R.W.: THE MOSS REPORTS Newsletters #169 January/30/05 and #170

02/06/05

(39) Gotzsche PC, Olsen O. Is screening for breast cancer with mammography

justifiable? Lancet 2000; 355(9198):129-134

(40) Baum M, Demicheli R, Hrushesky W, et al. Does surgery unfavourably

perturb the " natural history " of early breast cancer by accelerating the

appearance of distant metastases? Eur J Cancer. 2005 Mar;41(4):508-15

(41) Baines CJ. Mammography screening: Are women really giving informed

consent? JNCI 2003;(95) 20:1508-1511.

(42) Concato, J. et al: The effectiveness of screening for prostate cancer:

a nested case-control study. Arch Intern Med. 2006 Jan 9;166(1):38-43.

 

 

This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from

_http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm_

(http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm)