First Do No Harm








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

Part 3 - The Politics

How the Cancer Industry Suppresses The Truth

In prior sections I have discussed how the "Cancer Industry" (i.e. Big Pharma, the FDA, NIH, NCI, ACS, AMA, ad nauseum) uses statistics to lie about the lack of effectiveness of orthodox cancer treatments.

This section will deal specifically with how they suppress the existence of the charts mentioned in the prior section. However, before understanding how the Cancer Industry does its thing, we must first talk about how the tobacco industry was able to suppress the truth about the relationship between tobacco and cancer, emphysema, etc. for over 65 years.

If someone were to do a study on the relationship between tobacco and lung cancer, it would be a very easy thing to do:

1) Determine the percentage of non-smokers who get lung cancer,
2) Determine the percentage of smokers who get lung cancer,
3) Run the statistics

A class of high school students with a phone book could do a study that found a highly, statistically significant relationship between tobacco products and lung cancer. It is easy to find non-smokers, it is easy to find smokers, thus this type of study would always be an easy thing to do. Of course there are more ways to ascertain the relationship between tobacco and lung cancer than this, but this is the technique I want to emphasize.

The first scientific study finding the relationship between tobacco and lung cancer was done in the early 1930s. There had been many informal observations before that first scientific study, but we will start with the early 1930s.

As time passed there were more and more scientific studies that related tobacco products and lung cancer. By the 1950s there was simply an overwhelming amount of scientific information that linked tobacco products to lung cancer.

So why was it that the flood of lawsuits against tobacco companies had to wait until the 1990s?

The tobacco industry did a lot of things to suppress the truth. By far the most effective of these tactics was to use bribery to control the politicians ("bribery" is a term I use to encompass a wide variety of influence tactics) and advertising money to control the media. That was as easy as stealing candy from a baby. As always it worked to perfection.

Furthermore, it is easy to bribe executives of organizations. The AMA was easy to control and at no time offered a threat to the tobacco industry. It is the scientists they had to control. But how do you use bribery to control the scientific establishment? Aren't they people of impeccable integrity? It turns out that the answer is 'no'.

The "scientific" community was more than eager to take a share of the tobacco industry money pie and do numerous "bogus" scientific studies that did not find a relationship between tobacco and lung cancer. Now the reader might wonder how a "scientist" can do a scientific study and not find a relationship between tobacco and lung cancer. It is easy to do - just design a study that doesn't look for a relationship!

The tobacco industry set up numerous "front companies" to do certain tasks, one of which was to fund scientific studies that did not look for a relationship between tobacco and lung cancer. They spent scores of millions of dollars funding these studies.

  • "Since 1954, one of CTR's [Council for Tobacco Research - U.S.A., Inc.] principal activities has been to fund scientific research by independent scientists through its grant-in-aid program, under the supervision of its Scientific Advisory Board (SAB) supplemented on occasion by research contracts. CTR itself has not conducted any scientific research. Through this research program, from 1954 through 1996 CTR has provided approximately $282 million to fund over 1,500 research projects by approximately 1,100 independent scientists.

The researchers who have received CTR grant funding have been affiliated with approximately 300 medical schools, universities, hospitals and other research institutions, including such prestigious institutions as Harvard Medical School, Yale School of Medicine, Stanford University, numerous institutions in the University of California system, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, the University of Chicago Medical Center, the Scripps Research Institute, the Mayo Clinic and the Salk Institute. The researchers who have received this funding have not been employees of the tobacco companies or CTR. CTR's grantees have included many distinguished scientists, three of whom have won Nobel Prizes."

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)"

The "researchers" who, year after year, dipped into this money pot had to know what was going on. It seems that a person who picks a career as a doctor or scientist is not much different than a person who picks a career as a politician. They are both looking for the same thing - money.

The result of this funding scam was that there were numerous scientific studies that found a relationship between tobacco and lung cancer in scientific journals, which were not funded by the tobacco industry, and there were numerous scientific studies, just mentioned, that did not find a relationship between tobacco and lung cancer, that were funded by the tobacco industry.

Because of the "confusion" caused by these different studies there was not a "consensus" among scientists whether tobacco and lung cancer were related.

And here is the critical key: without a consensus there was not "scientific evidence" that there was a relationship between tobacco and lung cancer, etc. There must be a consensus for "scientific evidence." At least that is what the media would like you to believe.

However, when there is a consensus of opinion by researchers who do not have a conflict of interest (i.e. they aren't funded by the group being investigated), then it should be considered that THERE IS A CONSENSUS and there is SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE!!!

The statement in red is absolutely essential to understand. ANY study done under the control of the industry being investigated should be IGNORED by scientific circles. However, the money is too good for them to be ignored by the "scientific" establishment!!!

Let me give you a more recent example of why industry sponsored studies should NEVER be published or even be considered. Aspartame, known also as NutraSweet, Equal, etc., was very controversial during the time it was being studied. It caused holes in the brains of rats! Some scientists didn't want it approved for human consumption. Even some scientists in the FDA didn't want it approved.

Dr. Ralph G. Walton, M.D., did a study of 166 published studies on the safety of aspartame. The funding of these studies were from the following sources:

1) The pharmaceutical industry funded 74 of the studies
2) The FDA funded 7 studies
3) There were 85 studies that were not funded by Big Pharma or the FDA

Now stop and think real hard - which of the three groups of studies didn't find anything wrong with aspartame?

Of the 74 Big Pharma funded studies, not a single one of them found any health problems caused by aspartame. Of the 85 studies that were not funded by Big Pharma or the FDA, 84 of them did find health problems caused by aspartame. Do you see a pattern here?

Where do you think the 7 FDA studies landed? 6 of the 7 found no health problems caused by aspartame.

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.

(Note: The FDA cannot stop scientists from doing studies using cancer cells in cultures, using mice, rats, or doing statistical studies with public data, etc. Thousands of such studies have been done. However, they can stop clinical trials involving humans in the United States. They will not acknowledge human studies unless they are done by pharmaceutical companies. For example, they do not acknowledge foreign studies on humans, such as have been done with MGN-3 and Vitamin C.)

Could a study comparing chemotherapy to Vitamin C be ethically justified? Of course, just find patients who refuse all orthodox treatments and ask them to volunteer for an alternative medicine study. Or pick cancer patients who have been declared terminal. How can building their immune 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.

Because of the FDA it is not possible to obtain the [approved] statistical information 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.

More on "Scientific" Studies

I have talked about how Big Pharma makes a worthless substance look good. They use scientists who masterfully compare one type of toxic sludge to another type of toxic sludge. Or they compare how the toxic sludge does at treating symptoms. Or they use fancy statistical tricks. Or they design the study to insure no substantive information comes out of the study. An so on and so forth.

But the "scientific" industry (they are certainly not real scientists, they are more of an industry) are frequently given another assignment: make a good substance look bad!! In other words, they are sometimes assigned to make a bad substance look good, but in other cases they are assigned to make a good substance look bad.

Let us talk more about the Vitamin C treatment of Cameron and Pauling. Their study was profound, and it could have led to treatments that saved many, many lives. But it was not profitable and it did not make doctors look like heros.

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. His integrity was unquestioned. They had made a great discovery. 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. In this case, however, they had to make a good substance look bad.

But how in the world do you make a good substance look bad? 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, or the same 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).

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 Dr. Moertel was assigned to make a good substance look bad, thus he could not follow the same protocols as Pauling and Cameron, he had to modify the protocols in order to come to a different conclusion. 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.

Here is the key point - how can they disprove a study unless they follow the same protocols and come to a different conclusion?? They can't. If you don't follow the original protocol exactly, and if you come to a different conclusion, you have not proven anything!! If you want to disprove something you must follow the exact protocols. Moertel and company didn't do that, yet they claimed to have disproven Cameron and Pauling.

With three bogus studies to tell the world about, the Cancer Industry claimed that Moertel and company followed the "right" protocol, and because Pauling and Cameron did not follow the Moertel protocols that therefore the Pauling and Cameron studies were false!! If your brain just exploded, I fully understand.

Do you understand what they did? They agreed that a person should follow the same protocol in order to disprove something. However, they made it appear that the Moertel protocol was superior and that because Pauling and Cameron did not follow the Mortel protocol the results of the Cameron and Pauling study were false. I have an entire chapter in my free, online eBook on the Pauling/Cameron/Moertel studies.

My point is that for all bad substances (e.g. tobacco) there are two kinds of studies: studies that make the substance look bad (because it is bad) and studies that make the substance look good, or at least not harmful (because they are funded by Big Tobacco or Big Pharma). Likewise, for all good substances (e.g. Vitamin C) there are two kinds of studies, those that make the substance look good (because it is good) and those that make it look bad, or worthless (because they are funded by Big Pharma). This gives the FDA a blank check to approve or disapprove any substance, whether it is good or bad.

In addition, Congress has given the FDA, NIH, NCI, etc. 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!!

If anyone thinks for one minute that the FDA is corrupt and Congress is a group of saints, they need to have a reality check. Congress created the FDA, Congress lets them do what they want, and Congress only criticizes the FDA when the media cannot suppress what they have done. In other words, Congress only criticizes the FDA when their re-election might be threatened.

But let us not forget the "scientists" who bow to Big Pharma. 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."

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!!! It is not that these studies are not being done, it is that the government does not give them any official status (more will be said about this below).

You have now heard a few of the good things about alternative cancer treatments (truth table #3) and a few of the bad things about orthodox cancer treatments (truth table #4). Let's analyze why, throughout your life, you have only heard the items in truth table #1 and truth table #2.

The Media

If you failed the tests at the beginning of this article, you might wonder why the massive number of hours you have probably watched television and listened to the radio did not better prepare you to ace the tests.

Perhaps the next quote will help you understand:

  • "There is no such thing, at this date of the world's history, in America, as an independent press. You know it and I know it. There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job. If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone. The business of the journalists is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it, and what folly is this toasting an independent press? We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes."
    John Swinton (1829-1901) pre-eminent New York journalist & head of the editorial staff at the New York Times. Quoted one night around 1880. Swinton was the guest of honour at a banquet given him by the leaders of his craft. Someone who knew neither the press nor Swinton offered a toast to the independent press.

On any given year, Big Pharma pumps billions of dollars into the media companies for advertisements. Also, in any given year, not one penny is spent on advertising the Brandt Grape Cure because you can buy the necessary ingredients in a grocery store or a health food store. Likewise, you can buy necessary products at a grocery store to go on the Budwig diet (using walnuts instead of flaxseed oil) and many other alternative treatments for cancer.

In other words, there are many alternative treatments for cancer that will not provide Big Pharma a single penny of revenue, much less profits. This means these same treatments will not provide the media with a single penny of revenue. Guess which treatments the media pushes? In fact the Federal Trade Commission won't allow alternative cancer treatments to be advertised, because all of them are "unproven" (translation: not profitable to Big Pharma).

It has been known for over a hundred years that our American media sells their "opinions" to the highest bidder. The highest bidder, by a colossal margin, is always orthodox medicine. This explains why you have heard thousands of things in the media in truth table #1 and truth table #2, and it explains why you have probably never heard anything in the media in truth table #3 and truth table #4.

The media never gives publicity to books or articles that criticize Big Pharma. For example, the media has said nothing about how the pharmaceutical industry has blocked such books as: Corporate Crime in the Pharmaceutical Industry, by Dr. John Braithwaite, The Drug Story, by Morris A. Bealle, House of Rockefeller, also by Morris A. Bealle, and others. Try to buy one of these books on Amazon!! These books are very critical of Big Pharma.

And the media says nothing good about alternative medicine. For example, if the media says nothing about a book, it is guaranteed to have a very small amount of sales. Thanks to the media, no one will ever hear about books such as: Cancer, Cause, Cure and Cover-Up, by Ron Gdanski, The Germ That Causes Cancer, by Doug A. Kaufmann, Choose Life or Death - The Reams Biological Theory of Ionization, by Carey A. Reams, and many others.

By not mentioning a book, they are essentially destroying any possibility anyone will know about it. On the other hand, with one media blast, millions of people can be deceived in a single half-hour. The channels of deception are wide-open, always waiting to deceive the public, millions at a time. Yet, truth has no voice in the mass media.

The end result of all of this is that you do not know the truth about either orthodox treatments for cancer or alternative treatments for cancer! Let me say that again: you do not know the truth about either orthodox treatments for cancer or alternative treatments for cancer.

There is a war going on in medicine today, a war between orthodox medicine and alternative medicine. The war is being fought with money and information. The war is to control what you know, and don't know, about cancer treatments. The war is to control whether you know the truth about all of your cancer treatment options.

What you hear about orthodox treatments for cancer on television, the radio, the big magazines, etc. is a maze of sophisticated layers of lies and deception. It is like putting make-up on a T-Rex. What I have talked about is only the tip of the iceberg. My point is to emphasize that during your life you have not heard the truth about alternative treatments for cancer, you have only heard what Big Pharma wants you to hear. What you have heard in the media is not based on a love of truth, it is based on a love of money.

If you trust the wrong side in this war, it could cost you your life or the life of your spouse or the life of some other person close to you! It is a war that leaves people dead who don't do their homework and thus end up trusting the wrong people.

Now let us talk about the massive group of corporations that pulls the strings of their many puppets, all for the sake of profit.

The Pharmaceutical Industry

While the pharmaceutical industry does provide many life-saving and quality of life drugs, their lust for money has taken them into areas they have no business being in. There are many health areas where natural substances are far superior to mutated, synthetic molecules. Mother Nature is a far better chemist than all of the pharmaceutical chemists combined -- and will be for the next ten thousand years!

But because pharmaceutical companies cannot patent natural substances, they cannot make much of a profit from natural substances, even if they sold them (which some pharmaceutical companies do). Thus, to make the huge profits needed to appease their stockholders, they revert to pushing the most profitable synthetic molecules they can pass off as useful. In other words, they make decisions of what products to sell based solely on how profitable they are.

They also fund much of the massive effort to suppress the truth about natural molecules.

But the stockholders and executives of Big Pharma are not the only ones who profit from the massive pharmaceutical money pie. Pharmacies are more than happy to sell chemotherapy drugs. Doctors are more than happy to use surgery, chemotherapy and radiation. Hospitals are more than happy to house cancer patients and provide facilities to doctors. T.V. stations are more than happy to share in the pie. And many, many others share in the profits of this industry.

But it gets worse. The pharmaceutical industry has its hands in the pockets of Congress. Congress has protected the pharmaceutical industry via their creation and control of the FDA, NIH and NCI. In fact most government agencies were created to protect the profits of some large corporate industry which had power in Washington.

Corporations do not have police powers. So the way they get these police powers is to use their influence among corrupt politicians in Washington to create a government agency to, by proxy, exercise the police powers for the benefit of the corporations.

Congress is so concerned about protecting the profits of Big Pharma,, that in November, 2003 Congress handed a "corporate welfare" check to Big Pharma for scores of billions of dollars:

  • "The Medicare legislation that passed the House near dawn on Saturday and is moving toward a final vote in the Senate would steer at least $125 billion over the next decade in extra assistance to the health care industry and U.S. businesses ..."
    Washington Post, November 24, 2003

Since when does Big Pharma need "extra assistance." The bill, by the way, forbids the government from negotiating lower drug prices. How often did you hear this fact emphasized in the media before the bill was passed? Congress has a long history of being far more interested in the health of big business than in the health of the American people.

Rep. Billy Tauzin, the Louisiana congressman who largely wrote the $540 billion prescription-drug bill for Big Pharma resigned from congress to accept a $2 million-a-year job in the drug industry.

Big Pharma not only makes billions of dollars in profits from chemotherapy drugs every year, which do nothing but treat the symptoms of cancer, they also make hundreds of millions of dollars in profits every year for making drugs to treat the symptoms of chemotherapy and radiation!

Lest you think Congress is a group of strong-minded people who are deeply concerned about what is best for you, consider this: aspartame (i.e. NutraSweet, Equal, etc.) is known to cause brain damage to unborn children (i.e. a fetus). The damage is manifest as autism, ADD, mental retardation, etc. (see my article for pregnant women on this web site for more information). Now consider this quote:

  • "Prompted by mounting safety concerns within the scientific community, Ohio Senator Howard Metzenbaum called for Senate hearings on NutraSweet. He introduced the Aspartame Safety Act of 1985 on August 1st of that year. The bill called for clinical studies to ascertain the safety of aspartame, a moratorium on the introduction of aspartame into new products until independent testing was complete, labeling of products including the amount of aspartame in each serving and the allowable daily intake, and a warning that aspartame is not intended for infant use. The bill also required the FDA to set up a clinical adverse reaction committee to collect reports of adverse effects and to send written notices to physicians about aspartame. In a March 3, 1986 news release, the Senator stated `we cannot use American's children as guineas pigs to determine the 'safe' level of NutraSweet consumption.' Sadly, the bill that potentially could have stopped an ongoing tragedy, was killed in the Labor and Human Resources Committee, and never reached the Senate floor."

See also: Metzenbaum H. Discussion of S.1557 (Aspartame Safety Act). Congressional Record-Senate August 1, 1985, p.S 10820.

Did you hear about that bill in the media?

As an example of Big Pharma controlled Big Government, Hydrazine Sulphate was being successfully used against cachexia. The NCI said they would "test" the product. They intentionally did not follow protocol and effectively murdered all of the patients in the study. By doing this they could say there was "no scientific evidence" the treatment worked and they were able to suppress this treatment for over 10 years.

  • "As a result of [the peer-reviewed studies that demonstrated the effectiveness of hydrazine sulphate], the U.S. National Cancer Institute - which had placed hydrazine sulfate on its 'unproven therapy' list - sponsored three scientific studies to assess the benefit of hydrazine sulfate. These studies, published in 1994, found no benefit from hydrazine sulfate treatment. However, a review of these studies revealed that 94% of study patients had also taken at least one [of] the medications which can block the effect of hydrazine sulfate. Proponents of hydrazine sulfate have concluded that the results of the N.C.I. sponsored studies are invalid, and that there is abundant published, peer-reviewed scientific studies attesting to its benefit."

Many books have been written that document the persecution of alternative cancer doctors who cured too many of their patients with inexpensive natural products. Of course, most people have never heard of these books because the media does not give them the free publicity they give their favored books.

The American Medical Association

The AMA is nothing more than a labor union for doctors. Their job, like all labor unions, is to maximize the profits of their members. But the AMA is a labor union with power because it controls who can "practice medicine." In other words, the many experts in alternative cancer treatments cannot "practice medicine" unless they are first trained and brainwashed in the use of pharmaceutical medicine. However, that is not the end of it. Not even an M.D. can "practice medicine" if he or she does not use "approved" procedures which are adequately profitable to Big Pharma and the other members of the AMA.

The relationship between Big Pharma and the AMA is a quid pro quo, roughly translated: "you scratch my back, I'll scratch your back." The AMA makes sure its members prescribe toxic substances to increase the profits of Big Pharma. Likewise, the AMA makes sure its members treat the symptoms of disease (instead of the causes of disease) to insure the patient is not made well too quickly and the profits of Big Pharma are not hindered by the treatment of the causes of disease.

On the other hand, Big Pharma never forgets that the AMA has power equal to the FDA. Big Pharma would never come up with drugs that would seriously jeopardize the profits of the hospitals and doctors. That is why every year more and more people die of cancer, in spite of the billions of dollars in cancer research.

What exactly are the AMA and Big Pharma looking for? They are not looking for cheaper and safer treatments, they are looking for more profitable treatments. Gene therapy, stem cell transplants, bone marrow transplants, ad nauseum, are what they are looking for. They are looking for things that will make doctors and Big Pharma richer, more powerful and more sophisticated in the eyes of the public. They are not looking for an improved Budwig Diet.

The objective, guiding light and controlling direction of orthodox medicine is profits and earnings per share, not on what is best for their patients, either in terms of "total life" or "quality of life." Until that paradigm changes, there will be never be a significant improvement in the orthodox cancer treatments that reach your doctor's office regardless of what discoveries are made.

When a new discovery is made, the only question that is asked is this: "is it profitable enough?" If the answer is 'no' the treatment is buried. Now perhaps you know why medical costs continue to skyrocket through the roof.

But it gets worse. This same concept applies to medical theory. The medical establishment, which not only controls which treatments doctors will use, also control what medical "theories" doctors will believe and apply!! They will pick the medical theories that deliver the most profits for Big Pharma and the AMA's doctors.

These absurd medical theories then control the research direction and research money. In other words, the lust for profits controls the research money. Perhaps the reader can understand why people like John D. Rockefeller, Sr. were so anxious to set up foundations to control the direction of medical research. Their "generous" contributions had nothing to do with any concern for humanity, they wanted to control medical research.

The AMA and medical schools make sure doctors are totally ignorant of the applications of medical theories such as: the body's electrical systems, the importance of pH/alkalinity, the danger of fungi, moulds, etc. in the blood, phytonutrients, glyconutrients, vitamins/antioxidants, electromagnetic treatments, oxygen treatments, chlorophyll, and so on. These are theories that are not profitable enough, yet they lead to far more effective treatments than the highly profitable orthodox "theory" and treatments!!

When a spectacular discovery is made, the FDA or AMA shuts the clinic or lab down, the media suppresses both the discovery and the shutting down of the clinic, etc. How is the discovery going to be distributed among the public? It won't be. Big Pharma and the AMA have blocked all channels of communication!!

Some of more well-known (to alternative medicine people) cancer researchers who were shut down, or were severely harassed, by the AMA (or its state or Canadian equivalent) are:

Harry Hoxsey (herbs),
Dr. Royal Ray Rife (microscope and electromagnetic microbe killer),
John Clark (did follow up to Royal Rife's research),
Dr. William F. Koch (synthetic antitoxins),
Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski (Antineoplastons),
Dr. Max Gerson (diet and supplements),
Lawrence Burton, PhD (Immuno-Augmentative Therapy),
Dr. Andrew C. Ivy (Krebiozen),
Gaston Naessens (microscope and 714-X homeopathic),
Dr. John A. Richardson (laetrile),
Dr. Philip E. Binzel, Jr. (laetrile).

There have been numerous medical doctors and other health practitioners who used nutrition and supplements to treat cancer who had far higher "total life" cure rates on terminal cancer patients than any current orthodox treatment!! But the direction of cancer "research" is not to improve these natural treatments and determine why they work so well, but the direction of research is to test "theories" that lead to more profitable treatments!!!

Here is a quote from the modern version of the Hippocratic Oath: "I will follow that method of treatment which according to my ability and judgment, I consider for the benefit of my patient and abstain from whatever is harmful or mischievous." Somehow, investment advisors seem to be the only ones who benefit from modern medicine.

Those rare doctors who take their oaths seriously are the ones who get into trouble with the AMA!!

Cancer Drugs

I am absolutely stunned when I review cancer research reports on the internet that are made public. When a new natural nutrient is found that is proven to kill cancer cells or stop the spread of cancer, do they ask whether this nutrient can be used in a natural treatment for cancer? Of course not. The first question that is asked is this: "how can we mutate and synthesize this nutrient, patent it, and make it into a profitable drug?"

Ponder that last paragraph carefully because it is the heart and soul of modern medicine. Find a natural substance that cures something, bury this fact, then fabricate, synthesize, and mutate the key natural substance, then patent the mutation, and make huge profits. That is why there is "no scientific evidence" for alternative treatments, no one is looking because they cannot be patented and thus are not profitable enough.

As an example, consider this quote:

  • "The first development in this research using chemically altered DIM [diindolylmethane, a natural compound derived from certain vegetables] from broccoli came when the growth of breast cancer cells was inhibited in laboratory studies. Subsequent research showed these compounds also inhibited growth of pancreatic, colon, bladder and ovarian cancer cells in culture, Safe said. Limited trials on lab mice and rats have produced the similar results, he noted.

Safe said the research began by considering compounds that protect a person from developing cancer. After a stream of articles from other researchers extolling the scientific evidence that cruciferous vegetables prevent cancer, Safe and his team wondered whether the similar compounds could be developed for treatment of cancer. They looked at the mechanism how the compounds block cancer cell growth and found that they target PPAR gamma, a protein that is highly active in fat cells. This same PPAR gamma is over-expressed in many tumors and tumor cells and is a potential target for new drugs, he said. Safe's lab chemically modified "natural" DIM to give a series of compounds that target the PPAR gamma and stop the growth of cancer."

Wait a minute - why "modify" a natural substance that works perfectly well? Why not research how this natural substance can be used in a natural treatment for cancer? The answer is that it is not profitable enough.

If you are accounting savvy, consider this: because of patents, Big Pharma can charge any price they want to for a drug. This means that when they calculate the price of a drug they can first take into account how much it will cost them to bribe Congressmen, bribe public officials, control the media, control the AMA, control the ACS, pay "gifts" to individual doctors, pay lawsuits, etc. In other words, they can first calculate their expected costs for these things, then come up with a price for their drugs. They cannot go out of business because they can adjust their prices to pay for anything they want.

Do you want to know the mark-up of some common drugs? The Commerce Department did and came up with some interesting numbers:

Celebrex 100 mg
Consumer price (100 tablets): $130.27
Cost of general active ingredients: $0.60
Percent markup: 21,712%

Claritin 10 mg
Consumer Price (100 tablets): $215.17
Cost of general active ingredients: $0.71
Percent markup: 30,306%

Norvasc 10 mg
Consumer price (100 tablets): $188.29
Cost of general active ingredients: $0.14
Percent markup: 134,493%

Prevacid 30 mg
Consumer price (100 tablets): $44.77
Cost of general active ingredients: $1.01
Percent markup: 34,136%

Prilosec 20 mg
Consumer price (100 tablets): $360.97
Cost of general active ingredients $0.52
Percent markup: 69,417%

Prozac 20 mg
Consumer price (100 tablets) : $247.47
Cost of general active ingredients: $0.11
Percent markup: 224,973%

Tenormin 50 mg
Consumer price (100 tablets): $104.47
Cost of general active ingredients: $0.13
Percent markup: 80,362%

Vasotec 10 mg
Consumer price (100 tablets): $102.37
Cost of general active ingredients: $0.20
Percent markup: 51,185%

Xanax 1 mg
Consumer price (100 tablets) : $136.79
Cost of general active ingredients: $0.024
Percent markup: 569,958%

Big Pharma claims that these prices are necessary for them to continue with their expensive research. No so. Most of their mark-up is designed to cover other costs, such as lobbyists and advertising.

Now let's go back and talk about the Budwig cancer diet, which used two Nobel Prize discoveries in its development. It seems that modern medicine, with their billions of dollars of "research" money has not yet found a way to safely and inexpensively use these two Nobel Prize discoveries of the 1930s. But Johanna Budwig, by herself, was able to cure cancer with the two discoveries. Here is another question: "Do you think that the pharmaceutical industry and medical community are willing to forgo many billions of dollars of annual profits by looking for a safe and inexpensive way to use these discoveries?"

The FDA and "Scientific Evidence"

As mentioned above, Congress has designed the FDA to be the goon squad for Big Pharma. Whatever Big Pharma wants, Big Pharma gets.

This is not to say that all of the employees of the FDA are people of low integrity. I am sure many of the low-level FDA employees are people of high integrity and are truly people oriented. Such people have no future at the FDA.

This is because our two "festering in corruption" political parties make sure that whoever is in the White House does not accidentally appoint someone with a moral conscience to head the FDA. In other words, in order to be a top person in the FDA, especially those involved with profitable drugs, you must be willing to sell-out to Big Pharma.

Let us consider for a moment, the approval of the chemotherapy drug Iressa. I am quoting from the FDA web site:

"Accelerated approval is a program the FDA developed to make new drug products available for life threatening diseases when they appeared to provide a benefit over available therapy (which could mean there was no existing effective treatment). Under this program, Iressa is approved on the basis of early clinical study evidence (such as tumor shrinkage) suggesting that the drug is reasonably likely to have a valuable effect on survival or symptoms. The approval is granted on the condition that the manufacturer must continue testing to demonstrate that the drug indeed provides therapeutic benefit [i.e. tumor shrinkage] to the patient. If it does not, the FDA can withdraw the product from the market more easily than usual.

How many clinical trials were performed with Iressa and what did they show? The study on which FDA based it approval included 216 patients 139 of whom had failed treatment with two other chemotherapy treatments. In this trial, approximately 10% of patients responded to Iressa with a decrease in tumor size.

The sponsor also presented to FDA the results of two large (about 1000 patients each) clinical studies with Iressa as initial therapy for lung cancer. In these studies all patients received, standard combination chemotherapy and were randomly given, in addition, either Iressa or a placebo. In these studies there was no effect of Iressa on survival [versus the placebo], time to further growth of cancer, or on tumor size." (underscore added)
FDA at:

In other words, in two large studies this drug demonstrated absolutely no increase in survival of cancer patients. It was approved because in a trial of only 216 patients, only 10% of the patients had a decrease in tumor size (which is a symptom of cancer).

Note that this product was not approved in a study that compared the "total life" of a person using Iressa to the "total life" of someone who refused all treatments, or to someone on a top alternative cancer treatment. It was compared to treating the symptoms of cancer compared to another concoction of drugs.

Iressa was approved by the FDA. Dr. Kelley had 33,000 patients with a 93% cure rate!! How come the FDA has not approved his treatment? Dr. Gonzalez is duplicating part of Kelley's treatment, but the New York state medical society has forbidden Dr. Gonzalez to release the results of his study until his study is "done." Of course, no one knows when his study will be done.

Now lets do the math. 216 patients, 10% had lower tumor size (compared to a different combination of chemotherapy drugs). 33,000 patients, a 93% CURE RATE. The FDA approved Iressa and the Cancer Industry threw Kelley in jail and kicked him out of the country. What is wrong with this picture?

Because the FDA requires a study controlled by Big Pharma in order to approve a drug, why doesn't one of the pharmaceutical companies do an honest study using Dr. Kelley's full treatment on newly diagnosed cancer patients, and submit the results (which would be at least a 93% cure rate) to the FDA? Take a guess.

This is critical to understand, Big Pharma will not submit a drug to the FDA unless it is very, very profitable. The next thing to understand is that the FDA will not approve any drug, or other substance, unless it is studied under the control of Big Pharma.

Let's logically combine the above statements into one statement: The FDA will never consider, thus will never approve, any substance unless it is very, very profitable to Big Pharma.

In fact, that is exactly the way it is. Big Pharma first decides what products can be considered by the FDA, and then it submits only those products. In essence, the FDA has no control (by its own choice) over what substances are considered for approval. Only Big Pharma is allowed to decide what is considered for approval.

Let's take this a step further. The FDA does not consider that there is any "scientific evidence" for a treatment unless they have approved it!! In other words, there is no possible way that there can be any "scientific evidence" (according to the government's definition) unless a drug is very, very profitable to Big Pharma. Only things submitted to the FDA by Big Pharma can be considered to have "scientific evidence."

Do you see what is going on here? The reason there is no official "scientific evidence" for alternative cancer treatments is that they are not highly profitable to Big Pharma. It is impossible, by law, for a substance to be considered to have "scientific evidence," unless Big Pharma submits it to the FDA, and they will only submit things that are very, very profitable to them.

Thus, the many thousands of studies of natural substances that have cured or treated cancer, are not "scientific evidence," and they are ignored by our government, because they were not done under the control of Big Pharma. Quite a racket!! Big Pharma makes the tobacco industry look like amateurs!!

Thus, when quackwatch, the ACS, the NCI, WebMD, etc. claim that there is "no scientific evidence" for alternative treatments, it is nothing but a lie and a smoke screen, fabricated by Congress and its stepchild the FDA. These people have absolutely no interest in human life or "scientific truth." Their interest is money.

I can guarantee the reader, in all soberness, that there are more than 150 alternative cancer treatments that are far more effective than ANY and ALL orthodox treatments for cancer currently in use. All of these treatments have been suppressed, and many of them have been destroyed, by orthodox medicine. See my list of over 200 alternative treatments:
Click Here

Since all "scientific evidence" must come from big corporations, what is the reputation of big corporations for doing medical studies?

Well, do you remember the 1,500 studies, done over a period of 42 years, that were funded by the Council for Tobacco Research - U.S.A? These "studies" couldn't find a relationship between tobacco and lung cancer!!

Do you remember the 74 studies that were funded by Big Pharma to "study" whether aspartame causes any health problems? These "studies" couldn't find anything wrong with aspartame.

Big Pharma studies on radiation, chemotherapy, etc. are just as bogus because they only compare one toxic sludge to another toxic sludge, even when studying length of life. However, these same types of studies are also used to study treating the SYMPTOMS of cancer.

In short, if a study is funded or controlled (e.g. a government funded study) by Big Pharma, or any other giant corporation, it is a worthless, bogus, misleading, etc. study.

Yet, that is the ONLY type of study the FDA will accept and it is the ONLY type of study that will lead to the designation of "scientific evidence"!!

The thousands of honest studies, which are not in any way controlled by Big Pharma, are not eligible for the designation of "scientific evidence" because they do not lead to Big Profits for Big Pharma. Likewise, the cure rates of alternative doctors, such as Kelley and Binzel, are not eligible for the designation of "scientific evidence," instead the people involved with these studies are persecuted.

It is apparent that "scientific evidence" has absolutely nothing to do with "scientific truth."

When a vendor of natural substances funds a study to determine the effectiveness of their product, orthodox medicine ignores this study because they consider there is a "conflict of interest." On the other hand, when Big Pharma funds a study to make their toxic sludges look useful, the FDA cannot approve the study fast enough!! Not only does Big Pharma have a huge conflict of interest, any scientist that does a study for them knows what results they must come up with in advance.

Even though Dr. Kelley had a verified cure rate of 93% on 33,000 patients, the American Cancer Society describes his treatment this way:

  • "There is no scientific evidence that metabolic therapy is effective in treating cancer or any other disease. Some aspects of metabolic therapy may be harmful."

The FDA and cancer industry have invented many terms to describe alternative cancer treatments which imply they are useless, when in fact these terms mean nothing more than they are not profitable to Big Pharma. Regardless of how much scientific research has been done on these natural substances, the FDA will use terms like: "unproven therapy," "unproven treatment," "unproven methods," and many others. "Unproven" means "unprofitable to Big Pharma."

The terminology tricks of the FDA are absolutely critical to Big Pharma's Big Plan, as I will now show.

What Big Pharma Has Achieved With Their Big Money

It is the Big Plan of Big Pharma to destroy alternative medicine, especially as it relates to their most profitable products, such as cancer drugs, heart drugs, allergy drugs, etc. Now I will show you why the bogus concept of "scientific evidence" is so important to the Big Plan of Big Pharma. Big Pharma has ...

Blocked alternative cancer treatment training by medical doctors by taking over the medical schools and destroying the schools that taught natural medicine.

Blocked dissemination of information about alternative cancer treatments over the mass media by buying their "investigative journalists" with their advertising money.

Blocked the use of the term "scientific evidence" for alternative cancer treatments by controlling the "definition" of "scientific evidence" (i.e. they use the political definition) and by controlling the FDA and NIH.

Blocked financial contributions to alternative cancer treatment charitable organizations by their control of terms like "unproven treatments" and by setting up (or taking control of) huge "charitable" organizations that are totally controlled by orthodox medicine (e.g. ACS, Leukaemia (sic) Foundation, etc.).

Blocked research money for alternative cancer treatments on "live patients" (and thus valid statistical information) by their control of the FDA and NIH and their control of research money.

Blocked any investigation of corruption in medicine by their control of the members of Congress.

Blocked the ability of any medical doctor from using alternative cancer treatments by taking total control of Congress and the AMA (both national and state associations) and by using such terms as "unproven treatment."

Controlled the research direction of the cancer research organizations with their massive research dollars (both direct and indirect dollars).

Blocked the ability of natural substance vendors to tell the scientific truth about their products to their customers by their control of the FDA and FTC and their control of the definition of "scientific evidence."

Blocked the publicity and significance of the many discoveries in natural medicine by legitimate research institutions by their control of the media, the FDA and their control of the term "scientific evidence."

Destroyed much evidence about the usefulness of alternative cancer treatments by shutting down many medical clinics by their control of the FDA and AMA.

Flooded the World with bogus, highly sophisticated statistical misinformation and carefully designed terminology by their control of the ACS and other organizations.

Actively Trying to Destroy Internet web sites that tell the truth about alternative cancer treatments by their control of the FDA and by their control of the term "scientific evidence."

Actively Trying to Destroy the manufacture and distribution of natural products by their control of the FDA, FTC and Codex (the United Nations equivalent of the FDA) and by their control of the term "scientific evidence."

Was all of this success at destroying alternative medicine the result of a series of accidents? No, this is the result of spending billions of dollars to implement a carefully designed master plan organized at the top levels of Big Pharma. The FDA, NIH, NCI, ACS, medical schools, etc. are their puppets, and the leaders of these organizations are glad to join in the destruction of alternative medicine (no matter how many lives are lost in the process) in order to have a big piece of Big Pharma's bottomless money pit. Had Big Pharma not spent billions of dollars to achieve the above aims, none of the above things would have happened!!!

Other Diseases

Big Pharma and the AMA learned long ago that the path to massive profits is to treat symptoms. By treating symptoms you have not "cured" the patient, you have simply perpetuated the disease in the most profitable way.

In many cases, the drugs that treat the symptoms interfere with the body's own healing mechanisms and thus increase the amount of time the body needs to cure the disease. This increases the amount of time the patient is on medication!! This is true, for example, with Prozac and many other mind-altering drugs. Many drugs are also addictive.

So it should come as no surprise that the same government and medical corruption that is going on relative to cancer is also going on relative to heart disease, arthritis, asthma, psychological problems, Alzheimer's and many other diseases.

As just one example, let us talk about Alzheimer's/dementia. There are many different causes of Alzheimer's and dementia. In fact it is a wide range of different diseases. However, there is one cause of Alzheimer's and dementia that Big Pharma and the AMA would rather you not know about. In fact, it may be the cause of the majority of cases of Alzheimer's and dementia.

This cause has been known about for many years: heavy metals in the body. In fact, when Rome was the world's greatest power, it is now known that the lead in their wine glasses, and the lead in their water conduits, caused severe mental illness among Rome's elite.

Not only has the major cause of Alzheimer's been known about for decades, there has been a cure for this cause of Alzheimer's since 1952 - it is called EDTA chelation. But EDTA chelation is not profitable enough for orthodox medicine. It is not that EDTA chelation is not expensive, it is expensive. The problem is that it cures the patient too quickly, and it does not treat the symptoms of Alzheimer's. In short, it is not profitable enough for Big Pharma and it is not "sophisticated" enough, meaning it is too simple.

Let's first talk about what may be the major the cause of Alzheimer's/dementia:

  • "In large measure, those martyred by dementia are showing the results of toxicity from mercury, aluminum, lead, cadmium, arsenic and other heavy metals. Their neurons have been poisoned. They are turned into Alzheimer's victims directly through the efforts of dentists who blindly follow the party line of their trade union organisation, the [American Dental Association]."
    Dr Casdorph, M.D.

It turns out that the American Dental Association (ADA) is just as corrupt as the Alzheimer's Association, the AMA, the American Cancer Society, ad nauseum. Let us continue:

  • "Worldwide, conservatively, more than 20 million people have iatrogenic diseases caused by one medical specialty: dentists. The ADA is fighting a rear guard action to keep the public from learning that dentists, by use of mercury-silver amalgam fillings for decades, have poisoned more than 85 per cent of our population. The ADA has covered up its culpability in the same way breast implant and cigarette manufacturers deny disease connection to those products. Potential economic liability to amalgam manufacturers, their distributors, dentists and the ADA is incalculable."
    Tom Warren
  • "Three thousand doctors of the Toxicology Society came together at a medical conference in Seattle, Washington, several years ago to condemn mercury-silver amalgam fillings. Their revelations should have made banner front page headlines all around the world. Just three short stories appeared in the Press."
    Tom Warren

Now let's talk about the cure:

  • "The Alzheimer's type of dementia does respond rather well to [EDTA] chelation therapy. Fifteen Alzheimer's disease patients, in a private clinical setting, were tested first, then administered chelation therapy, and were observed by loved ones to have returned to normal, or near normal, functioning. It was a gratifying experience for everyone involved with the testing and treatment: diagnosticians, clinicians, health care technicians, the patients, plus their family and friends."
    Dr Casdorph, M.D. & Dr Morton Walker

Everyone was gratified except Big Pharma. For more information on dementia, see:

Newer products, such as aspartame, MSG, hydrolyzed vegetable protein (HVP), cysteine, and others, are nipping at the heals of heavy metals for the title of doing the most damage to human brains and causing birth defects. The problem with these items, however, is that they kill brain cells, and thus cannot be reversed.

Note: Speaking of aspartame, if you know someone who is pregnant, or may become pregnant, have them read this article immediately:
Click Here

As a side note, aspartame, dental amalgam, and trans-fatty acids may all be major causes of cancer.

Aspartame is known to be a major cause of brain cancer, especially in young people under 40, who grew up on aspartame. Every time a person drinks a diet soda some of their brain cells are killed.

The mercury in dental amalgam is known to severely suppress the immune system. In many cases cancer is nothing but a symptom of a suppressed immune system.

Trans-fatty acids are rigid molecules that stick to the sides of cell membranes (in place of the flexible cholesterol molecules). This rigidity causes a cell to be unable to absorb large molecules, such as insulin (trans-fatty acids are perhaps the leading cause of Type II diabetes) and oxygen clusters (oxygen travels throughout the body in clusters). Because oxygen clusters cannot get into the cells, the trans-fatty acids may cause the cells to become anaerobic, which is the first step to a cell becoming cancerous.

Here is another gift from the corrupt ADA. Dental root canals create a state of perpetual infection in the body. This infection suppresses (i.e. consumes) the immune system. A suppressed immune system can lead to cancer.

Not only is modern "medicine" intentionally suppressing the knowledge and use of effective treatments for cancer and other diseases, they are also intentionally suppressing the knowledge of the major causes of cancer and many other diseases. In fact these two things are highly related. They suppress knowledge of the causes, which in turn allows them to focus their "theories" on treating the symptoms of disease, which in turn allows them to suppress effective treatments. It is just as important for Big Pharma and the AMA to suppress the true causes of disease as it is for them to suppress the true cures for disease. That is one of the reasons why the FDA refuses to admit that cancer is a nutritional or metabolic disease.

The single most dominant cause of cancer may be the way the soil is destroyed by over-farming and chemical fertilizing, coupled with food processing and the meat, dairy and sugar centered "Western" diet of Americans. If the soil is nutritionally "sick" (e.g. virtually zero trace elements), the plants grown in that soil will also be nutritionally "sick," and the people that eat those plants will be nutritionally sick. My father (who won a Congressional Medal of Honor for his work with the Public Health Service) was warning me about the soil over 40 years ago!! Dr. Max Gerson was warning people about the soil over 50 years ago!!

But you won't hear Big Pharma or the AMA campaigning to get the soil fixed or to correct the basic flaws in the American diet.

Let us talk about cholesterol drugs. A good friend of mine was in the hospital because of quadruple bypass surgery. I asked him how long he had been taking cholesterol drugs before his surgery. He said about six years. For six years he had been taking cholesterol reducing drugs, then had a quadruple bypass. What is wrong with this picture?

Another friend of mine went to the doctor feeling fine. His cholesterol level was 195 and the doctor was quite pleased with this. A week later he had a heart attack and a quintuple bypass.

What is wrong with these pictures? In fact there are many scientific studies (which were not funded by Big Pharma) which have shown little, if any, relationship between cholesterol and heart disease. But cholesterol drugs are enormously profitable to Big Pharma. This is yet another case of "who funded the study?" See my article on cancer and heart disease prevention for links to a few natural heart disease prevention web sites.
Click Here (search for the word "Matthias")

As one of scores of examples of absurd double-standards done by our corrupt government, consider that over a 10 year period the FDA claims the herb Ephedra killed approximately 155 Americans. Ephedra competes with profitable products like Claritin. During the same 10 years, the tobacco industry killed approximately 4 million Americans. Tobacco is allowed to be sold because of "warning labels." But rather than allow "warning labels" on ephedra bottles (for those with high blood pressure or other heart problems) Ephedra was banned by the FDA. In other words, tobacco, which killed 4 million Americans can still be sold, but ephedra, which killed 155 Americans, was banned.

In studying different diseases and their causes, the same substances keep showing up over and over again as major causes of a wide variety of diseases. A short list of man-made substances (e.g. aspartame, trans-fatty acids, mercury poison from dental amalgam, etc.) turn out to be the major causes of diseases such as: cancer, heart disease, depression, Type I diabetes, Type II diabetes, birth defects, etc. See this chart to get an idea of what I am talking about:
See Chart (Use Internet Explorer Only)


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.





Articles | Newsletter | Who We Are | Links | Search Site 
Help Us To Help Others
| Online Friends | Prayer List | Find A Practitioner

Contact Us  


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.