Part 3 - The Politics
How the Cancer Industry Suppresses The Truth
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
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.
someone were to do a study on the relationship between tobacco and
lung cancer, it would be a very easy thing to do:
Determine the percentage of non-smokers who get lung cancer,
2) Determine the percentage of smokers who get lung cancer,
3) Run the statistics
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.
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.
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.
was it that the flood of lawsuits against tobacco companies had to
wait until the 1990s?
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
"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!
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.
one of CTR's [Council for Tobacco Research - U.S.A., Inc.]
principal activities has been to fund scientific research by
independent scientists through its grant-in-aid program, under
the supervision of its Scientific Advisory Board (SAB)
supplemented on occasion by research contracts. CTR itself has
not conducted any scientific research. Through this research
program, from 1954 through 1996 CTR has provided approximately
$282 million to fund over 1,500 research projects by
approximately 1,100 independent scientists.
The researchers who have received CTR grant funding have been
affiliated with approximately 300 medical schools, universities,
hospitals and other research institutions, including such
prestigious institutions as Harvard Medical School, Yale School of
Medicine, Stanford University, numerous institutions in the
University of California system, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine,
the University of Chicago Medical Center, the Scripps Research
Institute, the Mayo Clinic and the Salk Institute. The researchers
who have received this funding have not been employees of the
tobacco companies or CTR. CTR's grantees have included many
distinguished scientists, three of whom have won Nobel Prizes." http://www.rkmc.com/tobacco.order91097.asp
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.!!!
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.
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.
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."
"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)"
"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.
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.
of the "confusion" caused by these different studies there was not a
"consensus" among scientists whether tobacco and lung cancer were
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
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!!!
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!!!
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.
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
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
stop and think real hard - which of the three groups of studies
didn't find anything wrong with aspartame?
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?
do you think the 7 FDA studies landed? 6 of the 7 found no
health problems caused by aspartame.
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.
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.
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.
comes up against profit, it is seldom that profit loses."
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:
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
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
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
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
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.
Linus Pauling / Ewan Cameron study had to be done in Scotland and it
was done on terminal patients.
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
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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!!
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.
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:
, 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
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."
even this quote does not pinpoint how the pharmaceutical industry
has achieved total suppression of truth.
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 ...
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,
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.
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.
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!!!
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).
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
also fund much of the massive effort to suppress the truth about
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.
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:
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.
Washington Post, November 24, 2003
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
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.
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!
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:
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."
also: Metzenbaum H. Discussion of S.1557 (Aspartame Safety Act).
Congressional Record-Senate August 1, 1985, p.S 10820.
hear about that bill in the media?
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
"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."
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
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!!
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!!
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:
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).
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!!!
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.
rare doctors who take their oaths seriously are the ones who get
into trouble with the AMA!!
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?"
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
example, consider this quote:
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."
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
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.
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%
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%
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%
Consumer price (100 tablets): $102.37
Cost of general active ingredients: $0.20
Percent markup: 51,185%
Consumer price (100 tablets) : $136.79
Cost of general active ingredients: $0.024
Percent markup: 569,958%
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.
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"
mentioned above, Congress has designed the FDA to be the goon squad
for Big Pharma. Whatever Big Pharma wants, Big Pharma gets.
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.
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
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: http://www.fda.gov/cder/drug/infopage/iressa/iressaQ&A.htm
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).
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
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
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."
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.
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!!
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.
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:
all "scientific evidence" must come from big corporations, what is
the reputation of big corporations for doing medical
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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
apparent that "scientific evidence" has absolutely nothing to do
with "scientific truth."
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.
though Dr. Kelley had a verified cure rate of 93% on 33,000
patients, the American Cancer Society describes his treatment this
"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."
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."
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
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 ...
alternative cancer treatment training by medical doctors by taking
over the medical schools and destroying the schools that taught
dissemination of information about alternative cancer treatments
over the mass media by buying their "investigative journalists" with
their advertising money.
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
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.).
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.
any investigation of corruption in medicine by their control of the
members of Congress.
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
the research direction of the cancer research organizations with
their massive research dollars (both direct and indirect dollars).
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
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."
much evidence about the usefulness of alternative cancer treatments
by shutting down many medical clinics by their control of the FDA
Flooded the World
with bogus, highly sophisticated statistical misinformation and
carefully designed terminology by their control of the ACS and other
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."
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
first talk about what may be the major the cause of
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]."
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:
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
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."
let's talk about the cure:
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."
Casdorph, M.D. & Dr Morton Walker
Everyone was gratified except Big Pharma. For more information on
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
Speaking of aspartame, if you know someone who is pregnant, or may
become pregnant, have them read this article immediately:
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.
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.
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
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.
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!!
won't hear Big Pharma or the AMA campaigning to get the soil fixed
or to correct the basic flaws in the American diet.
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
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.
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")
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.
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
See Chart (Use Internet Explorer Only)
Copyright (c) 2003, 2004, 2006 R. Webster Kehr, all rights reserved.
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