The politics of cancer
The economic$ of cancer treatment are astounding. Cancer treatment is nearly $100 billion annually ($100,000,000,000). The chemotherapy part of that in 1995 was $8.5 billion. Looking at it from another angle: the Bristol Myers company owns patents on 12 of the nearly 40 "FDA-approved" chemotherapy drugs. The president, the past president, the chairman of the board, and several directors of Bristol Myers all hold positions on the board at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center.
Cancer is a nutritional, toxic, environmental condition which, in a great number of cases, can be reversed successfully through the application of a sound nutritional approach and common-sense lifestyle changes.
Dr. Ralph Moss on conventional cancer therapies
Ralph Moss, Ph.D. is probably the most knowledgeable writer in the world on alternative therapies for cancer, and has recently published a 530-page book, "Cancer Therapy, The Independent Consumer's Guide to Nontoxic Treatment and Prevention", which I highly recommend.
Dr. Ralph Moss is also the author of the book, "Questioning Chemotherapy", which documents the ineffectiveness of chemotherapy in treating most cancers. On November 19 1977, Dr. Ralph Moss was fired from the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center for telling the public the truth.
Dr. Ralph Moss gained credibility by writing 8 books, including "The Cancer Industry", a documented research work which exposes the enormous financial and political corruption in the "cancer establishment". He shows that the motivating forces in cancer research and treatment are often power and money, and not always the cure of cancer patients. Dr. Moss also writes "The Cancer Chronicles", a newsletter reporting on new cancer treatments and preventive measures.
Dr. Moss' work documents the ineffectiveness of chemotherapy on most forms of cancer. However, Dr. Moss is fair in pointing out that there are the following exceptions: Hodgkin's disease, Acute lymphocytic leukemia, and testicular cancer. Also, a few very rare forms of cancer, including choriocarcinoma, Wilm's tumor, and retinoblastoma. But all of these account for only 2% to 4% of all cancers occurring in the U.S.. This leaves 96% to 98% of other cancers, for which chemotherapy doesn't eliminate the disease. The vast majority of cancers, such as colon, breast, and lung cancer are barely touched by chemotherapy.
"Effective" only means a temporary shrinkage of the tumor.
"Effective" cancer treatment is a matter of definition. The FDA defines an "effective" drug as one which achieves a 50% or more reduction in tumor size for 28 days. In the vast majority of cases, there is absolutely no correlation between a tumor shrinking for 28 days and the cure of the cancer or even extension of life.
When the cancer patient hears the doctor say the word "effective," he or she thinks that "effective" means it cures cancer. But all it means is a temporary reduction in the size of the tumor.
It's especially meaningful that in a number of surveys most chemotherapists have said that they would not take chemotherapy themselves or recommend it for their families. Chemotherapeutic drugs are the most toxic substances ever put deliberately into the human body. They are known poisons, they are designed poisons. This whole thing originated from experiments with "mustard gas", the horrible chemical-warfare agents from World War I.
Dr. John Cairns, a microbiology professor at Harvard, published his views in "Scientific American" in 1985, "that basically the war on cancer was a failure and that chemotherapy was not getting very far with the vast majority of cancers."
As far back as 1975, James Watson, Nobel Laureate of DNA fame was quoted in the New York Times as saying that the American public had been "sold a nasty bill of goods about cancer."
Why is chemotherapy still being pushed by oncologists?
With the extensive documentation in Dr. Moss' book, and all of the statistics developed by the experts, why is chemotherapy still being pushed by the wide majority of oncologists? Dr. Moss feels that "there's a tremendous conflict going on in the minds of honest, sensitive, caring oncologists." Oncologists are in a very difficult position because they've been trained to give these drugs. And they've devoted many long years to reaching a very high level of expertise in the knowledge of poisonous, deadly compounds. They're really in a bind because they went into oncology to help the cancer patient, and yet the tools they've been given don't work. And they see what happens to doctors who step out of line and treat cancer with alternative means.
It is clear that we are losing ground with conventional cancer treatments, because the death rates keep going up. The reason for this is because conventional treatment is based on a faulty standard: That the body must be purged of cancer by toxic and aggressive methods such as chemotherapy, surgery and radiation therapy. This seemed reasonable back in 1894 when Dr. William Halsted, M.D. did the first radical mastectomy, but it has proven to be so wrong over the past 50 years that continuing to adhere to it constitutes more fraud than an honest mistake. However this standard still dominates conventional cancer therapy, and until this changes, we will continue to lose ground with cancer.
Your immune system likely bears most of the burden for fighting cancer; thus, all techniques which enhance it are promising. Those that damage it are not.
"...as a chemist trained to interpret data, it is incomprehensible to me that physicians can ignore the clear evidence that chemotherapy does much, much more harm than good." - Alan C Nixon, PhD, former president of the American Chemical Society
"If I contracted cancer, I would never go to a standard cancer treatment centre. Cancer victims who live far from such centres have a chance." Professor Charles Mathe, French cancer specialist
"To the cancer establishment, a cancer patient is a profit center. The actual clinical and scientific evidence does not support the claims of the cancer industry. Conventional cancer treatments are in place as the law of the land because they pay, not heal, the best. Decades of the politics-of-cancer-as-usual have kept you from knowing this, and will continue to do so unless you wake up to this reality." - Lee Cowden MD
"Doctors are too busy to dig into the statistics of cancer treatments, they assume that what they are taught at school or what is demonstrated in the pages of briefing journals is the best treatment. They cannot afford to suspect that these treatments are only the best for the pharmaceutical companies that influence their 'institutions of higher learning'." Paul Winter, The Cancell Home Page.
The above quotes are representative of a vast library of well-sourced contrary information which reasonably questions the efficacy and validity of conventional cancer treatments based on a huge amount of clinical research and data. Naturally, with all these expensive, patented treatments available to fight cancer, the cancer rates should be going down. They are not. They are increasing.
So if some non-harmful, natural treatments are successful with cancer, why aren't we hearing about these natural treatment successes? Why aren't they being heralded across the world? The answer is money. Despite the successes in cancer regression through nutrition, and through extensive application of vital elements such as Vitamin C, Vitamin B17 - laetrile, pancreatic enzymes, the Gerson therapy and many more non-harmful cancer therapies discussed here, the big pharmaceutical companies are doing all they can to silence these success stories. To have it become widely known that cancer can be successfully treated without toxic and profitable pharmaceutical drugs would be catastrophic for their business. More reasons why non-harmful cancer therapies are not "approved" can be found here.
What I would do if I had cancer
If I had cancer I would use the information outlined throughout this web site to heal myself. Would I reject any form of conventional cancer treatment? Probably, but it would depend on the specific circumstances. Cancer treatment is a very sensitive issue. This is what I personally would do. It is not a recommendation for you, and should not be considered as such. The choices to be made in treating cancer are not easy ones, because there is so little certainty of cure in any of them. The course of treatment which someone chooses is very personal, and reflects not only that person's knowledge of the options, but also his or her beliefs.
More information about conventional cancer treatments is available here.
© 2002 Healing Daily