• Our new website is currently launching ~ Please report any errors/anomalies by phone 1-866-543-3388 ~ Thank You

  • "Whether you think you can or you think you can't, you're right." -Henry Ford

  • Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do than by the ones you did do. Explore. Dream. Discover. H. Jackson Brown Jr.

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 centers. 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 (sulfur 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 (sulfur 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)

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."

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

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, MD 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.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, MD, 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, MD, 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. T

here 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 nonsmokers 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 nonsmokers, 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, MD, 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.?

Sign Up for Life Enthusiast News

Get free health tips in your email weekly!