Introduction to Alternative Cancer Treatment 2

Introduction to Alternative Cancer Treatments
by R. Webster Kehr,
Independent Cancer Research Foundation, Inc.

Part 2 - The Great Deception

The Four Parts of Any Truth Table

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!

At some point in your life you have probably heard about cancer treatments that use natural substances, such as vitamins, enzymes, minerals, etc. This type of medicine is usually called "alternative medicine." What you heard about alternative medicine may have made you feel good about it or it may have made you feel bad about it. Either way, at the time, you probably weren't motivated to do the research to find out the truth.

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):

3) Learn the good things about alternative cancer treatments, from the alternative medicine supporters.
4) 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, from the orthodox medicine supporters, and they have heard the bad things about alternative medicine, from the orthodox medicine supporters, they think they are experts on both subjects!! But they are not experts in either subject because they have not heard a word from the alternative medicine supporters!!!

While this sounds like a simple concept, it is virtually impossible for the average person to comprehend. Why should they listen to people they have been told all their life not to listen to? I am going to repeat that last paragraph:

Here is the eternal truth: If orthodox medicine supporters (e.g. the American Cancer Society) will lie to you about how good orthodox cancer treatments are, then the orthodox medicine supporters (e.g. quackwatch) will also lie to you about how bad alternative cancer treatments are!!! That is why you don't know the truth about either orthodox cancer treatments or alternative cancer treatments!!

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, many of whom had been given up for dead by orthodox medicine and had been sent home to die. What was his verified cure rate?

Question #3: Fill in the blank: "In a review of 206 human studies, [which food] consistently emerged as one of the top cancer-fighting foods."

Question #4: How many Nobel Prize discoveries (and when were they awarded) did Dr. Johanna Budwig use to help her develop the Flaxseed Oil (omega 3) / Cottage Cheese (sulphur proteins) cancer treatment?

Question #5: It is absurd to think that a person can be cured of cancer simply by changing their diet. Only professionals can cure cancer. True or false?

Let's answer these questions.

Question #1

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 immune system. Chemotherapy virtually destroys an already weakened immune system, and it is the immune system that deals with cancer on a normal basis. On the other hand, Vitamin C helps build the immune system. It makes sense that someone who has had their immune system built up would outlive someone who had their immune system destroyed.

Because Dr. Pauling was world famous, and had an impeccable reputation for quality and integrity, a person might wonder why the orthodox medical community did not do further studies on Vitamin C and cancer. They did do further studies on Vitamin C. But the purpose of these studies was not what you would expect. I will say more about this later in this article.

Question #2

Answer: Dr. William Donald Kelley, a dentist by training, had a 93% cure rate on patients who lived 1 to 1.5 years after starting his treatment. 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 immune system and safely and selectively kill cancer cells.

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?"

First of all, even for orthodox medicine the vast majority of cancer patients live for at least a year and a half after their first diagnosis. But for Dr. Kelley it is logical to conclude that an even higher percentage of cancer patients, who went to him first, lived for at least a year and a half because Dr. Kelley's treatment does not damage the immune system, rather it builds the immune system. Furthermore, Dr. Kelley had a high cure rate even for pancreatic cancer patients who went to him first.

In other words, virtually all of the cancer patients who went to Dr. Kelley first were in the group that had a 93% cure rate! If we further make the even more obvious conclusion that among those cancer patients in the 93% statistic, those who went to him first had at least as high a cure rate as those who went to orthodox medicine first, then we can logically conclude that his cure rate on patients who went to him first was probably around 90%.

All of this is a highly 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 treatments after their cancer was further along (compared to those who went to him first), and

Third, those patients who went to orthodox medicine first had their immune systems severely compromised before they went to Dr. Kelley (in other words, for those who went to Dr. Kelley first, they still had their immune system intact), thus Dr. Kelley had to rebuild that portion of their immune system before his treatment started to become fully effective. This loss of time was in addition to the lost time caused by these patients going to orthodox medicine first.

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 close to 90%, and perhaps even higher! That is far, far higher than the patients who go to orthodox medicine first.

In fact, as will be shown below, when you factor out all of the fancy statistical tricks of orthodox medicine, such as their "5-year cure rate," the true cure rate for orthodox medicine is 3%. Thus, patients who went to Dr. Kelley FIRST had a THIRTY TIMES higher chance of surviving their cancer than those who went to orthodox medicine exclusively.

Dr. Kelley's 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 wrote a book about his treatment: Cancer, Curing The Incurable Without Surgery, Chemotherapy or Radiation before his death in early 2005.

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 90% cure rate for new cancer patients, then find ways to improve on it to get even higher cure rates? Why are they content with a 3% cure rate when there is a publicly available treatment that has a 90% cure rate on new patients?

After reading Part II of this article the answer to that question will become obvious.

While the Kelley Metabolic treatment is perfectly capable of curing a person's a cancer, I should note that it is not advised that it be the primary treatment for someone who has been on chemotherapy. Some newer treatments do not depend on building the immune system before they fully work, thus they are far more effective on patients who have had their immune system compromised by chemotherapy.

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

Answer: Two Nobel Prizes, Dr. Otto Warburg (1931) and Dr. Albert Szent-Gyorgyi (1937). First, Dr. Warburg:

"Dr Otto Warburg, twice Nobel laureate was able to prove that cancer cannot grow in an high oxygen environment. He states: `Cancer, above all diseases, has countless secondary causes, but there is only one prime cause: the prime cause of cancer is the replacement of normal oxygen respiration of body cells by anaerobic respiration'. In other words, lack of oxygen. His research revealed that when a cell is denied 60% of its normal requirement of oxygen, it switches to a fermentation mechanism and grows out of control."
http://www.internethealthlibrary.com/Therapies/OxygenTherapy.htm

Second, Dr. Szent-Gyorgyi:

"Dr. Szent-Gyorgy won the Nobel Prize in 1937 for discovering that essential fatty acids combined with sulphur-rich proteins (such as those found in diary products) increases oxygenation of the body."
http://www.healingdaily.com/conditions/cancer-prevention-measures.htm

Note that both of these Nobel Prizes were awarded in the 1930s. Dr. Budwig developed a diet to combine these two discoveries into one simple treatment plan - flaxseed oil and cottage cheese. Her treatment has cured untold thousands of cancer patients.

Question #5

Question #5: It is absurd to think that a person can be cured of cancer simply by changing their diet. Only professionals can cure cancer. True or false?

Answer: I quote from alternative medicine expert Walter Last:

"To show how simple natural methods can be very effective in overcoming advanced cancer, I like to mention an example from the book The Food and Health of Western Man by Dr J. L. Mount. In five reported cases of bowel cancer, surgery revealed that metastases had already spread all over the body. Therefore, these patients were just closed up again and sent home to die. But instead of doing that, independently of each other, these five changed their diets and from then on ate only homegrown organically raised food. When they finally did die 21 to 30 years later, no traces of cancer could be found in post-mortem examinations. Such cures without medical intervention are regarded as 'spontaneous remissions'."
http://www.mrbean.net.au/~wlast/cancerintroduction.html

The vast majority of cancer patients who go into "spontaneous remission" made massive changes in their diet after being diagnosed with cancer.

"A study was done on 200 cancer patients who had experienced "spontaneous remission." Doctors call these remissions "miracles." They're NOT miracles. Here's how they did it. Eighty seven percent of them fundamentally changed their diets - mostly to vegetarian. All of the 200 made changes in their lives including nutritional supplementation and detoxification techniques. What this and other studies are telling us is that cancer can be cured by fundamentally changing the chemistry that created it."
Raymond Francis (http://www.aidsinfobbs.org/articles/quilty/q02/732)

Here is another interesting quote:

"A study of four hundred cancer cases that went into spontaneous remission revealed cures which had little in common. Some people drank grape juice or swallowed massive doses of vitamin C; others prayed, took herbal remedies, or simply cheered themselves on. These very diverse patients did have one thing in common, though. At a certain point in their disease, they suddenly knew, with complete certainty, that they were going to get better, as if the disease were merely a mirage, and the patient suddenly passed beyond it into a space where fear and despair and all sickness were nonexistent."
http://www.paksearch.com/globe/1999/April/HIGHER.html

While it is true that many people go into spontaneous remission by dramatically changing their diet and attitude, imagine what would happen if newly diagnosed cancer patients were told:
1) What foods contained the most cancer-killing nutrients,
2) What foods contained the best nutrients to build the immune system,
3) What foods feed cancer cells and thus cause the cancer to grow faster (these are foods to avoid),
4) The best supplements to kill cancer cells and build the immune 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

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. Indeed, the "total life" of cancer patients has barely changed in over 80 years in spite of many improvements in treating symptoms.

Furthermore, while many people do go into remission, for some types of cancer more than 90% of the people that go into remission will come out of remission (which is called "regression") and will later die of cancer. "Total Life" has to do with the eventual death of the patient, not the treatment of the symptoms of cancer. Consider this quote:

"Ovarian cancer is usually detected at an advanced stage and, as such, is one of the deadliest and most difficult cancers to treat. Therapy can eradicate the tumors, but most patients relapse within two years ... Normally, when a woman is diagnosed with ovarian cancer, she undergoes surgery to have the tumors removed. The ovaries, fallopian tubes, uterus and parts of the bowel are often removed as well. Chemotherapy follows the surgery, and about 90 percent of patients then go into remission, a period of "watchful waiting." "The problem is that over the next five to 10 years, as many as 90 percent of women will relapse and die," says Berek. When the cancer returns in other surrounding tissue, it is more virulent and resistant to chemotherapy."
taken from: http://www.azcentral.com/health/women/articles/0618ovarian.html

Of course the "returning" cancer is more deadly than the original cancer, the person's immune system was destroyed while treating the symptoms of the first cancer. The cancer may never have left the patient. Once chemotherapy has damaged the immune system, the patient is left far more vulnerable to cancer.

An even more deceptive term has entered into the vocabulary of orthodox medicine. The term is "response." Again, people equate the term "response" to cure. This newly ubiquitous term is even more deceptive than the term "remission." What does "response" mean? It only means that the tumor has shrunk a little. That's all.

Orthodox medicine wants patients to think that the tumor is the cancer and the size of the tumor equates to the cancer being cured. This is utter nonsense. It is a clever trick to avoid the issue of "total life." Rather than extending the total life of patients, they extend their vocabulary to be more and more deceptive.

Question #2

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.

But the lies of orthodox medicine on this issue go much deeper than that - much deeper.

If you look up the word "cure" in the dictionary, or think about the concept of curing cancer, you might come up with a definition of "cure for cancer" as meaning the cancer patient has been returned to his or her condition before they got cancer. In other words, they have less than, or fewer, cancer cells than the average person.

Why doesn't orthodox medicine use that definition of "cure?" If they did use that definition, and every few years they found a true cure for a type of cancer, their cure rate would slowly go up.

But that is exactly why they don't use that definition of cure. They have no intention of curing cancer. As Dr. Bob Beck, a PhD in physics used to say: "a patient cured is a customer lost."

How can orthodox medicine maximize their "profit per cancer patient?" In other words, they cannot control who gets cancer, but they can control how much money they make per cancer patient. They can do that by making cancer into a chronic disease.

In other words, if can they extend the life of the patient, and keep them on orthodox drugs and orthodox treatments, the orthodox medical community can make more and more money per patient.

It is easy to tell from their choice of a definition of "cure" that that is exactly what they had in mind all along.

When the orthodox medicine people came up with their "5-year cure rate" they clearly had in mind that they wanted to convert cancer into a chronic disease, meaning the patient was going to be on prescription drugs for the rest of their life. That was clearly their goal, because as they convert people into chronic patients their "cure rate" will go up and up ( i.e. more and more of them will hit the 5 year mark, but they will be on drugs for life).

Their definition of "cure" has NOTHING to do with how many cancer cells a person has, what their health is, how long they will live after the 5 year mark, how their immune system is doing, how many microbes they have in their body, etc. etc. It is just a number which reflects their ability to convert cancer into a chronic disease. The more they are able to convert cancer into a chronic disease, the higher their "cure rate," using their tricky definitions.

Orthodox medicine loves to use tricky definitions to make their treatments look better than they really are, and to hide how ineffective their treatments are.

The reader should understand the difference between a "treatment" and a "true cure." A "true cure," meaning the patient is made whole and no longer needs prescription drugs, stops the profits of orthodox medicine. But a "treatment" extends and expands on their profits. Orthodox medicine wants to "treat" cancer, not "cure" cancer.

In fact, orthodox medicine hates it when someone uses the term "cure" for any disease. They want that term to be illegal because it distracts the attention of people away from what they want - all profitable diseases to be chronic diseases.

Question #3

Answer: This comment needs some explanation because the goal of the pharmaceutical industry is to maximize their profits. Think about it, can you maximize your profits better if your patients live 5 years or 3 years? Obviously, 5 years. So there is some motivation to extend the life of cancer patients.

However, think about this also. If you cure the patient after one year, how much profits do you make after they are cured? Not much.

Thus, the goal of orthodox medicine is to make cancer into a chronic disease, like diabetes, where the patient has many years of treatment.

Also, understand that chemotherapy drugs do not target cancer cells, they target fast-growing cells. There is a significant difference between targeting fast-growing cells versus targeting cancer cells.

First, some cancer cells are slow growing, thus chemotherapy does not target them and may not kill them. Second, some non-cancerous cells are fast growing, thus chemotherapy may target them and kill them.

Thus, to target fast growing cells instead of cancer cells is a huge difference.

But more importantly, because chemotherapy drugs do not target cancer cells chemotherapy drugs cannot stop the spread of cancer. If enough chemotherapy were given to a cancer patient that the drugs stopped the spread of the cancer, the patient would die from the toxicity of the chemotherapy.

Thus, the FDA has NEVER in their history approved a drug that targeted cancer cells and/or stopped the spread of cancer. Ponder that carefully.

However, scores of natural substances have been proven to target cancer cells, or do no harm to non-cancerous cells, and thus STOP the spread of cancer and cure the patient. Scores of natural molecules have been proven to do that!!

The FDA has NEVER approved one of the natural substances known to target cancer cells, or do no harm to non-cancerous cells, and thus stop the spread of cancer and cure the patient.

Thus, everything the FDA has approved:
1) Is very profitable to the pharmaceutical industry,
2) Does NOT target cancer cells,
3) Does NOT stop the spread of cancer, and
4) Does NOT cure the patient.

Technically speaking, the drugs may slow down the cancer, and thus put the patient in remission, but in the vast majority of cases the patient comes out of remmision and dies of cancer or the cancer treatment. Thus the drugs approved by the FDA are more and more profitable to the pharmaceutical industry (because the patient is on the treatment longer), but they do not stop the spread of cancer or cure any patients.

Also, the FDA has NEVER approved any of the natural molecules, which:
1) Are not highly profitable to the pharmaceutical industry,
2) DO target cancer cells or do no harm to normal cells,
3) DO stop the spread of cancer, and
4) DO cure the patient of cancer, especially if the patient did not go with orthodox treatments first.

Do you see a pattern here? The deciding factor on what is approved by the FDA is not based on how long a patient lives, but on how profitable the drug is to the pharmaceutical industry. So talking about the "total life" of the patient misses the whole point of what is going on in orthdox medicine.

This is the key, if the FDA was interested in maximizing the "total life" of cancer patients they would only approve natural substances for the treatment of cancer. That is the key. The FDA is only interested in increasing the "total life" of the cancer patient if it means more profits to the pharmaceutical industry.

Question: Who do the executives of the FDA care about? Answer: Whoever provides them the most money and other benefits.

To hide what they are really doing, the FDA approves chemotherapy drugs based on the treatment of the symptoms of cancer. The focus on how long a patient lives is not a focus on targeting cancer cells, or doing no harm to non-cancerous cells, and thus stopping the spread of cancer and thus curing the patient. It is only a focus on profits.

But the approval of chemotherapy drugs is generally based on how well a new drug does treating symptoms (e.g. tumor size or putting a patient in remission), 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).

Once they got their first chemotherapy drug approved (to treat symptoms), then all future drugs can be approved by comparing them to earlier drugs for either "extending life" or treating symptoms.

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).

"We have a multi-billion dollar industry that is killing people, right and left, just for financial gain. Their idea of research is to see whether two doses of this poison is better than three doses of that poison."
Dr Glen Warner, M.D. oncologist

Now a person might think that it would be unethical to compare a chemotherapy drug to those who refuse treatments. If a person were secretly given a placebo, perhaps that would be unethical. However, there are plenty of people who voluntarily refuse to subject themselves to orthodox treatments who could be used in a study to compare a chemotherapy treatment plan to those who refuse treatment!!

To understand what is going on, suppose a new drug allows 75% of the cancer patients, with a specific type of cancer, to live for 2 years after diagnosis. What exactly does this mean if 85% of those same cancer patients would have survived two years without any type of orthodox treatment or 97% of those same cancer patients would have survived 10 years using the best of the alternative cancer treatments?

Again, the focus of the FDA is on profits, not on "total life," though the "total life" may increase in order for the pharmaceutical industry to make higher profits.

The FDA executives are not innocent bystanders in the murdeous war between orthodox medicine and alternative medicine. The FDA is 100% behind the pharmaceutical industry and 0% behind the people of the United States. They are just as guilty as the pharamceutical executives, just as guilty as the AMA executives, and just as guilty as anyone else lying to the American people by telling them prescription chemotharapy is in the best interests of cancer patients or that alternative cancer treatments are worthless.

Nor can Congress plead stupidity and hide behind the skirts of the FDA. The members of Congress will have to individually face the Great Judge of the Universe and explain why they intentionally stood by and watched hundreds of thousands of Americans die every year while the FDA executives (and Congress) were taking bribes from the pharmaceutical industry.

Question #4

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

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. When orthodox medicine says that "cure rates" have gone up, they are comparing their "old" 5-year chemotherapy stats to their "new" 5-year chemotherapy stats. 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. While the Cameron/Pauling Vitamin C therapy in not one of the best current alternative cancer treatments, there are newer Vitamin C therapies that are among the best 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 combined with carefully chosen deceptive 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:

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.
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.
Destroys the immune system: Because chemotherapy and radiation destroy a person's immune 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 immune 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.
Destroys the immune 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.
Destroys Red Blood Cells: Because chemotherapy and radiation kill red blood cells (red blood cells carry oxygen to the cancer cells and oxygen helps keep cancer from spreading), cancer cells do not get a normal supply of oxygen. Since cancer cells are anaerobic, this allows them to thrive and divide faster.
- "So, if a Cancer patient is already Acidic & if Acid drives out the oxygen causing an anaerobic atmosphere that Cancer loves, how much sense does it make to take Chemotherapy that will kill more of your oxygen carrying Red Blood Cells? By a matter of deduction and the use of common sense once again, wouldn't that create an even more anaerobic atmosphere and provide an even more desirable situation for Cancer to wreak havoc?" http://www.polymvasurvivors.com/what_you_know_4%20Corners%20Protocol.html
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.
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.
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.
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?

The above list is a rather small listing of the side-effects of orthodox treatments. If you want a more complete picture of how bad orthodox treatments are watch the videotape "Cancer Doesn't Scare Me Anymore" by Dr. Lorraine Day, M.D., available at many health food stores or at: Dr. Day's website

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 immune 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.

Judging Orthodox Cancer Treatments

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 immune 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 immune 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!

The 97% number came from cancer expert Ralph Moss, PhD, who could only identify a few very rare types of cancer for which he thought orthodox treatments actually extended the "total life" of cancer patients.

"2 to 4% of cancers respond to chemotherapy...The bottom line is for a few kinds of cancer chemo is a life extending procedure---Hodgkin's disease, Acute Lymphocytic Leukemia (ALL), Testicular cancer, and Choriocarcinoma."
Ralph Moss, Ph.D. 1995 Author of: Questioning Chemotherapy

Actually, it is very doubtful Hodgkin's disease patients have their life extended by more than a few years. In any case, how can we "justify" the use of orthodox cancer treatments? We cannot in 97% of the cases. Even for the 3% that are benefited there may be alternative treatments that are even better than chemotherapy.

What exactly is the significance of the 97% figure Dr. Moss, and many others, have calculated? The significance is that THE "REAL CURE RATE" FOR ORTHODOX CANCER TREATMENTS IS 3%!!

In other words, whenever you see an overall cure rate for orthodox medicine higher than 3%, it is a number generated purely by deceptive statistical tricks!! Compare the 3% REAL cure rate of orthodox medicine to the REAL cure rate of 93% of Dr. Kelley, for those patients who went to him FIRST (meaning they did not go to orthodox medicine before they went to him).

Then ask yourself why the FDA approves one chemotherapy drug after another and yet ignores alternative cancer treatments. IS GOD A QUACK? No, but modern "scientists" are quacks and the FDA will only listen to modern "scientist" quacks.

Also, ask yourself why every year more people die of cancer than died in the prior year. Ask yourself if all of these "breakthroughs" in chemotherapy drugs you hear about every week actually change that 3% figure (answer: they never do, they are comparing one worthless drug to a newer, more profitable worthless drug and they are only talking about symptoms or temporary regression).

Now ask yourself if the REAL 3% cure rate justifies the massive pain and suffering of orthodox cancer patients and whether it justifies the massive damage done to their organs, immune system, red blood cells, etc.

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 the "5 Year Cure Rate"

When you see a chart of orthodox medicine "5 year cure rates," you might see a number like: 45%, meaning 45% of cancer patients for this particular cancer lived 5 years after diagnosis.

There are many statistical tricks that are used to get to this 45% figure, but even if this number were accurate (which it is not), even this number is worthless. I will explain why.

When you see a number like 45% you are supposed to think in your mind this thought: "The cure rate for those who refuse all orthodox treatments, and refuse all alternative treatments, is 0%." That is what they want you to think.

In other words, they want you to think that the difference between refusing all treatments and using chemotherapy, etc. is 45%. You are supposed to think: "a 45% "5 year cure rate" for orthodox medicine, minus a 0% "5 year cure rate" for those who refuse all treatments, equals a difference of 45%." You are supposed to think that orthodox treatments are superbly beneficial because they are 45% effective.

But what is the truth? What if the "5 year cure rate" for those who refused all treatments was 50%? If that were the case, then 5% those who go on orthodox treatments would die before the 5 years is up, whereas they would not have died if they had refused all treatments. Would this statistic cause people to run to the nearest hospital to have chemotherapy? Of course not.

My point is that orthodox medicine doesn't want you to know the "5 year cure rate" for those who refuse all treatments and they especially don't want you to know the "5 year cure rate" for those who go on alternative treatments. Even though there are many people who refuse all treatments, this statistic is not kept. Why? Because they don't want you to know that orthodox cancer treatments only have an overall REAL cure rate of 3%. The overall REAL cure rate is actually the overall difference between orthodox medicine and refusing all treatments.

When the side effects of chemotherapy and radiation are taken into account, people would demand that orthodox treatments are at least 15% higher, or more, than for those who refuse all treatments or go on alternative cancer treatments. But overall, it is only 3% and that is only for those who refuse treatment.

This 3% number does not mean that there would be an overall difference of 3% on a "5 year cure rate" basis (that is too short of a time to evaluate orthodox treatments), it means that when all the dust settles, only 3% of the patients have actually been cured with orthodox treatments.

Does this 3% differential justify the massive side-effects of orthodox treatments? Now do you understand why orthodox medicine uses so many statistical tricks?

By far the most important statistics you need to know in order to make an informed decision are suppressed and not kept. Why? Because they don't want you to make the obvious choice of going with alternative medicine. But going with alternative medicine requires a lot of homework on your part to make sure you go on the right alternative cancer treatments.

More will be said about the suppression of data in a moment.

More on Treating the Symptoms of Cancer

Dr. Philip Binzel, M.D., a medical doctor who used alternative cancer treatments, discussed several key issues relative to the treatment of the symptoms of cancer. Let us look at a longer version of a quote that was mentioned earlier:

"When a patient is found to have a tumor, the only thing the doctor discusses with that patient is what he intends to do about the tumor. If a patient with a tumor is receiving radiation or chemotherapy, the only question that is asked is, "How is the tumor doing?" No one ever asks how the patient is doing. In my medical training, I remember well seeing patients who were getting radiation and/or chemotherapy. The tumor would get smaller and smaller, but the patient would be getting sicker and sicker. At autopsy we would hear, "Isn't that marvelous! The tumor is gone!" Yes, it was, but so was the patient. How many millions of times are we going to have to repeat these scenarios before we realize that we are treating the wrong thing?

In primary cancer, with only a few exceptions, the tumor is neither health-endangering nor life-threatening. I am going to repeat that statement. In primary cancer, with few exceptions, the tumor is neither health-endangering nor life-threatening. What is health-endangering and life-threatening is the spread of that disease through the rest of the body.

There is nothing in surgery that will prevent the spread of cancer. There is nothing in radiation that will prevent the spread of the disease. There is nothing in chemotherapy that will prevent the spread of the disease. How do we know? Just look at the statistics! There is a statistic known as "survival time." Survival time is defined as that interval of time between when the diagnosis of cancer is first made in a given patient and when that patient dies from his disease.

In the past fifty years, tremendous progress has been made in the early diagnosis of cancer. In that period of time, tremendous progress had been made in the surgical ability to remove tumors. Tremendous progress has been made in the use of radiation and chemotherapy in their ability to shrink or destroy tumors. But, the survival time of the cancer patient today is no greater than it was fifty years ago. What does this mean? It obviously means that we are treating the wrong thing!

We are treating the symptom — the tumor, and we are doing absolutely nothing to prevent the spread of the disease. The only thing known to mankind today that will prevent the spread of cancer within the body is for that body's own defense mechanisms to once again function normally. That's what nutritional therapy does. It treats the defense mechanism, not the tumor.

The woman with a lump in her breast is not going to die from that lump. The man with a nodule in his prostate gland is not going to die from that nodule. What may kill both of those people is the spread of that disease through the rest of their bodies. They got their disease because of a breakdown of their defense mechanisms.

The only thing that is going to prevent the spread of their disease is to correct the problem in those defense mechanisms. Doesn't it seem logical then, that we should be a lot less concerned with "What are we going to do about the tumor?" and a lot more concerned about what we are going to do about their defense mechanisms?"
Philip Binzel, M.D., Alive and Well, Chapter 14

I want to emphasize a key point in that quote. Orthodox medicine treats symptoms. They would have you believe that the tumor is the cancer. The tumor is not the cancer. The tumor is a symptom of a symptom. A tumor is a symptom of cancer and cancer is frequently a symptom of a weakened immune system. Is it best to treat the symptom of the symptom or is it best to treat the cause?

Alternative cancer treatments focus on building the immune system, selectively killing cancer cells and sometimes on converting cancerous cells into normal cells. Alternative cancer treatments are usually not interested in shrinking tumors. Why? Because 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 tissue is still there. It is not the tumor tissue that is dangerous, it is the cancer cells.

And therein lies one of the major differences between orthodox medicine and alternative medicine. Orthodox medicine focuses on the size of the tumor, alternative medicine focuses on the cancer cells in the tumor.

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.

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 immune 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 immune 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 immune 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 immune 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 immune 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 11 months 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 66 months. (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 immune system, etc. The vitamin C patients had none of these side effects, instead they had their immune system built up and lived 55 months longer. Which treatment would you pick based on the chart?

Wouldn't you love to see the chart for your situation if you were recently diagnosed with cancer!! I would love to see such charts!! This web site would not be necessary!!

Having a chart as I just described, for the best 100 alternative treatments for cancer and for all orthodox treatments, it would be easy to decide which treatment protocol to choose. However, it is the sole purpose of the FDA, NCI (National Cancer Institute), and NIH (National Institutes of Health), all government agencies, to make sure such charts are never created.

Why are government agencies and orthodox medicine so opposed to these charts existing? Because if such charts existed no one would ever choose orthodox treatments for cancer. No one - EVER!

If such charts existed, the percentage of recently diagnosed cancer patients who died of something unrelated to cancer and unrelated to cancer treatments would quickly climb to over 99% because everyone would take a combination of the best alternative treatments for their type of cancer! That is not an exaggeration!

But the government doesn't want you to pick the right treatment, they want you to pick one of the Big Pharma treatments. They don't want you to know the truth.

It is not that these people want you to die -- they don't care about that -- they want money. The typical high-level government employee in the FDA, NIH or NCI will be a millionaire within 3 years of quitting the government. Big Pharma will reward them for their "services" while they were with the government. This word spreads back to the current executives and the cycle of loyalty continues.

Essentially, the government agencies are nothing but departments of Big Pharma. I will say more about that in a moment.

"There is no lobby in Washington as large, as powerful or as well financed as the pharmaceutical lobby, and according to a report from Public Citizen, more than half of the drug industry's 625 registered lobbyists [that is more than the number of members of Congress!] are either former members of Congress or former Congressional staff members and government employees ... Other evidence suggesting possible FDA bias turned up in a study revealing that 37 of the 49 top FDA officials who left the agency moved into high corporate positions with the company they had regulated. Over 100 FDA officials owned stock in the drug companies they were assigned to manage."
http://www.jrussellshealth.com/healthpols.html

But let's think about those charts I talked about earlier. Suppose that orthodox treatments were at the top of every one of the charts, and alternative cancer treatment fared very poorly against orthodox treatments. Why would Big Pharma feel the need to bribe public officials and Congressmen?

If alternative medicine didn't work, the FDA would shut down all the quacks, and Big Pharma wouldn't care. But it isn't the quacks that Big Pharma is concerned about. It is the people that can cure cancer that Big Pharma bribes the FDA to shut down.

Yes, there are "alternative medicine" "quacks" out there, but by shutting down the real quacks, there is a public impression that everyone the FDA shuts down is a quack. Nothing could be further from the truth. Many of the clinics the feds shut down (whether FDA, FTC or whatever) are top-notch alternative clinics that have very high cure rates. There have been scores of excellent alternative practitioners (some of them M.D.s) who had far better cure rates than orthodox medicine, but who were shut down by orthodox medicine, usually by the AMA or FDA.

In other words, if orthodox medicine were superior, in terms of "total life," why wouldn't they want those charts to be made?! Ponder that carefully. If orthodox medicine were superior, they would gladly put together the statistical information using "total life" to "prove" their supposed superiority. They wouldn't need layer after layer of deception -- the truth would tell the story. They could save a lot of money in bribes and lobbyists if those charts existed and their products were superior.

The NIH would gladly fund hundreds of legitimate studies for alternative medicine if these studies gave them the results they wanted. But they know the truth and know they must suppress the truth and suppress the charts. It is the attempts by alternative medicine to put together enough evidence to gather these statistics that is the primary target of government corruption (yes, the ease and willingness to be bribed is one of the major criteria for the definition of "corruption").

Now consider this. If orthodox cancer therapy were superior to alternative cancer therapies, then alternative cancer practitioners would want their patients to have surgery, as part of the treatment, to kill concentrated masses of cancer cells, and hope this caused the patients to live longer. In other words, alternative doctors would use surgery to hide the ineffectiveness of their treatments. On the other hand, orthodox treatments would not require surgery because orthodox treatments would safely kill cancer cells.

But just the opposite is true. Orthodox therapies request surgery to kill concentrated masses of cancer cells and hide their ineffectiveness. On the other hand, I have never heard of one of the respected alternative cancer practitioners recommend surgery to kill cancer cells. It isn't necessary. The only time surgery is recommended is to remove the pain of a tumor pressing against another organ or if there is a blockage or there is some immediate life-threatening problem caused by the tumor. But never is surgery recommended as part of the cancer treatment.

Yet, in spite of the fact that orthodox medicine uses surgery, in almost every case, a person would live longer if they refused all orthodox treatments, including surgery.

The imaginary charts I am talking about is what the orthodox establishment, which includes the American Medical Association (AMA), FDA, NIH, NCI, American Cancer Society (ACS), quackwatch, etc. don't want you to ever see. All of these organizations are funded and controlled by Big Pharma or they are in collusion with Big Pharma. There have been over 50 books written on this corruption and suppression of truth! Have you ever heard one of these books discussed on television?
See a list of books

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. Part 2 of this article will go into the politics of cancer in far more detail.

Especially For Those Who Don't Have Cancer

People who don't have cancer rarely give cancer a second thought. All their life they have been conditioned to believe that the medical community is diligently making progress in the "War Against Cancer." They believe there is nothing to worry about. If they get cancer, the medical community will take good care of them and furthermore a "cure" is always "right around the corner." All of this is an assumption that could cost a person their life!

When a person is diagnosed with cancer, they are in a total state of hysteria and panic. They will grab at the first "rope" that is thrown to them. Guess what, orthodox practitioners are more than happy to throw them that rope.

When a person is told they have cancer, the medical establishment forcefully tells them that they immediately need to have surgery, and usually tells them they will need to have chemotherapy and radiation. This was drilled into your medical doctor while he or she was in medical school - but it is a giant lie. Doctors frequently will schedule surgery for a patient before telling them they have cancer!

If you are not prepared, in advance, for the utter terror of being told you have cancer, and to the enormous pressure of orthodox medicine, you will end up being cut open and probably have toxic sludge put into your arteries. You will get sick, your immune system will be destroyed, you will wish you were dead, and it is all for nothing, because orthodox treatments for cancer are worthless and almost always do far more damage than good. And all of this will happen before you knew what hit you.

Furthermore, and understand this carefully, doctors will not tell you your options, especially your alternative cancer treatment options. If they mention alternative treatments, they are talking about using nutrition and natural substances to treat the symptoms of chemotherapy and radiation, (i.e. complementary medicine), they are not talking about the alternative cancer treatments this web site discusses.

Many cancer patients think, when they hear about complementary medicine, that orthodox medicine and alternative medicine have joined forces in a cozy relationship. The relationship is more like a lion and a lamb. Big Pharma allows limited use of natural substances to treat the symptoms of chemotherapy so patients will not drop out of chemotherapy due to sickness. No doubt their motivation is so that the patient will stay on chemotherapy longer, and thus Big Pharma will make more profits.

But what if you are diagnosed with cancer and you haven't done your homework? You might consider telling your doctor you will "think about the proposed treatments" for a couple of weeks. You might buy time by asking your doctor to produce scientific articles that prove the proposed treatment extends the "total life" of similar cancer patients compared to patients who refused all treatments. (Warning: Do not get duped by letting your doctor talk about "5-year cure rates.")

During those two weeks, do not go to work. Spend those weeks studying this web site, then go to other web sites I link to. Do absolutely nothing but read during those two weeks.

The main thing you need to look for are testimonials. It is the testimonials, not the scientific evidence, that will convince you that alternative treatments really work. It is exactly for this reason that the medical establishment does not consider testimonials as "scientific evidence." But they are scientific evidence - powerful evidence, but they don't lead to the conclusions the medical establishment wants you come to.

Especially For Those Who DO Have Cancer

If you have recently been diagnosed with cancer you have a decision to make. Should you go with orthodox treatments first and then go with alternative treatments after the orthodox medicine people have sent you home to die? Or should you go with alternative treatments first?

If it sounds like a tough decision then you had better read this article another two or three times.

Is there a risk of going with alternative medicine first? I can think of only one possible situation where it might be a risk. If the cancer is totally contained to one place of the body, and is getting ready to spread throughout the body, but has not yet spread. Then surgery might be acceptable.

However, I doubt, in all sincerity, that your doctors really know it has not already spread. By the time you have symptoms, the cancer has been in your body for several years. Modern "medicine" has no clue where all of the cancer cells are in your body. In many cases I truly believe they say that it is contained just to get your business, when in fact they know that they don't know if it has already spread (or it may have come from somewhere else to begin with).

Cancer is generally caused by a combination of two things. First, a poor diet. Second, a carcinogen. In other words, a person has a poor diet, the body fills with fungus, then a carcinogen is introduced into the body and the person gets cancer, generally because of the fungus. Thus, by cutting out the cancer the cause of the cancer has not been fixed. There is nothing about orthodox medicine that deals with the true cause of cancer. As some have asked: "Is cancer caused by a deficiency of chemotherapy?"

Let me suggest you go with alternative cancer treatments first. Is there a risk in having your immune system built up? Is there a risk in treating your liver with natural substances that cleanse it? Is there a risk in selectively killing cancer cells with substances God himself designed? Is there a risk in dealing with the cause of your cancer?

More importantly, is there a risk in avoiding surgery? Is there a risk in avoiding chemotherapy, which destroys your immune system plus it destroys red blood cells? Is there a risk in avoiding radiation therapy which burns many of your healthy cells to death?

I suppose there is a risk going with alternative medicine first. The level of risk is largely dependent on how much homework you do.

Now the bad news. Most people who seek out alternative cancer treatments have already been sent home to die and they feel they "have nothing to lose" by going with alternative medicine.

The reality is that several alternative cancer treatments have been demonstrated to cure over 90% of the cancer patients who use this treatment first. However, for people who go to orthodox medicine first, and are eventually sent home to die, I have never seen a cure rate for an alternative cancer treatment that was over 50%.

Do the math. If you go with orthodox medicine first (cure rate of 3%), and THEN go with alternative cancer treatments, even if you use the best and strongest alternative treatment there is, your chances of surviving your cancer is cut in half!!

There are several problems for people who have been sent home to die. First, their body, and especially their major organs, have been severely damaged and frequently these organs cannot be repaired, especially the liver. Second, their immune system has been destroyed before they were sent home to die. Third, they have lost months or years of time while waiting for orthodox medicine to send them home to die, time that is not available for alternative treatments to work.

The truth is that even if there was an alternative cancer treatment that safely removed every cancer cell from a patient's body within a few days, many of those sent home to die would die (even after this mythical treatment) because of the damage done by orthodox medicine - without a single cancer cell in their body!!

The last problem is that the few alternative treatments that can cure some cancer patients sent home to die work by killing cancer cells, which must be done slowly in order to avoid too many toxins being released by dying and dead cancer cells. Thus, additional time will be lost during the treatment.

Note: The only alternative cancer treatment proven to be the mythical treatment mentioned above (that cured cancer within days) was destroyed by the American Medical Association in the 1930s. It was the Rife Machine and it reverted cancer cells safely into normal cells without killing the cancer cells and thus without releasing a lot of toxins. Treatments that kill cancer cells cannot work that fast.

Having said all of that, the best of the best of the few treatments that are strong enough for advanced cancer patients is the combination of cesium chloride and DMSO, which is the heart and soul of the "Stage IV" cancer treatment on this web site. For Stage IV cancer patients, those sent home to die, those with a fast-spreading cancer, and those with a high fatality cancer, read this article:
Treatment For Stage IV Cancers

For all other cancer patients, you can start with this article:
Treatment For Stage I, II and III Cancers

A complete alternative cancer treatment is in 3 phases:
a) Phase 1: Treat the cancer for at least two months after all symptoms are gone,
b) Phase 2: A less strict 1 year plan to insure all cancer cells are killed,
c) Phase 3: An even less strict lifelong cancer prevention plan.

The above 2 articles are for Phase 1. There are other articles on this website for Phase 2 and Phase 3.

Do You Know Someone With Cancer?

Many of the people who read this article are trying to decide whether to tell someone they know, who has cancer, about this web site. It is a far easier decision than you think. Don't make their decisions for them!! Tell them about this web site and let them decide what to do about it!

I know you love the person and want what is best for them. That is good, but a person with cancer has a right to know their options and to make their own decisions. It is their life at stake, let them make the hard decisions. It is the person with cancer who needs to know their options.

Part 3 of this article will go into much more depth about the corruption and politics of modern "medicine."

Part 1 - The Medicine
Part 3 - The Politics

Copyright (c) 2003, 2004, 2006 R. Webster Kehr, all rights reserved. This article may be downloaded, stored on the internet, printed, or emailed to others, as long as it is not modified in any way and this copyright notice remains intact.

Search Cancer Articles Only

Custom Search

© Copyright 2007 Minnesota Wellness Publications, Inc.

For non commercial use: You may copy, print, reprint, and/or transfer this entire article, if and only if it is unmodified and in its complete state with this copyright notice attached and all the links work properly. All others must contact us in writing.