Considering Chemo

In 1987 Dr. Lana Levi, of the University of California wrote, “Most cancer patients in this country die of chemotherapy… It does  not eliminate breast, colon, or lung cancer. This fact has been know for over a decade.. Women with breast cancer are likely to die  faster with chemotherapy than without it.”  

The above statement is in direct contrast to popular belief because of statements like this:  

“1998 was truly one of the most exciting years for cancer research,” said Harmon Eyre, MD, executive vice president for research  and medical affairs for the American Cancer Society (ACS). “While we are closer than ever to finding answers…” followed by a  pitch for more donations.  

Who is telling the truth?

In 1986 McGill Cancer Center scientists surveyed 118 oncologist who specialized in lung cancer. They were asked if they would  take chemo if they developed lung cancer. Three-quarters replied that they WOULD NOT TAKE CHEMO.  Taken from Reclaiming Our Health by John Robbins, 1996. Published by HJ Kramer, Box 1082, Tiburon, CA 94920.  

In 1984 an unusual convention of doctors was held in Chicago. Nine eminent physicians from all over the United States spoke to  an auditorium packed with their colleagues. The name of the conference was Dissent in Medicine. The theme at the conference  was the propensity of the nation’s medical hierarchy to lie to the public. Among the speakers was Alan S. Levin, M.D., professor of  immunology at the University of California, San Francisco, Medical School, “Practicing physicians are intimidated into using  regimes which they know do not work. One of the most glaring examples is chemotherapy, which does not work for the majority  of cancers.”  

If you want to learn what a doctor would discover if they researched the statistics of their cancer treatments, here are ten pages  reprinted from the book World Without Cancer which address surgery, radiation, and chemo effectiveness. These pages are  preceded by my introduction which summarizes the cancer mechanism presented by the book. So many facts are presented in the  book that no doubt remains that this mechanism is accurate. Two obvious conclusions arise: here is another safe, effective cancer  treatment and a simple pill-a-day preventative. Unfortunately, the pharmaceutical companies in concert with the AMA were able  to discredit this treatment, despite successful test results, exactly like NCI did with their test result summary concerning Cancell.  

The “War” on Cancer or How to Make a Lot of Money Forever  

Summarizing the first 20 years of the war on drugs (during which time our taxes have poured into the medical industry at $billions  each year for cancer research alone) the Americian Cancer Society (Cancer Facts and Figures 1997 web page, see Links at the  page bottom) presents a table showing the percentage of people who die of cancer each year by cancer type. The percentage has  risen in more than half the 43 types of cancers studied. The overall percentage of people dying of cancer increased. You might  think that this has to do with having a larger older population, but read on:  

Regarding conventional treatments, Ralph W. Moss, Ph.D. formerly of Sloan-Kettering Cancer center, from his Cancer Chronicles  #20 ©March 1994 by :  

“It’s official. Even the Journal of the American Medical Association now admits that the war on cancer is a failure. An article in  the Feb. 9 [1994] issue says that cancer incidence and death rates are rising. Most people knew that smoking-related cancers were  on the rise. Now we learn that a “baby boomer’s” chances of getting non-smoking-related cancers are double what their  grandparent’s odds were. “In all age groups, cancer incidence is increasing…,” the article reveals.  

In addition, “few new, effective treatments have been devised for the most common cancers.” This follows similar revelations in  Scientific American (2/94).”  

Despite the number of people who quit smoking, the percentage for deaths due to lung cancer has increased dramatically.  Something is basically wrong with conventional wisdom regarding cancer. On the other hand alternative treatments are working  exactly the way they should, but doctors continue to attack their effectiveness.  

How Alternative Treatments are Successfully Attacked
Alternative treatments usually treat the cause of an illness, but each illness can have a number of causes. Therefore, each  alternative cancer treatment is effective on a smaller percentage* of cases than something like chemo which works on the  symptoms. Chemo will often reduce the size of tumors, but they start growing again because chemo does not addressing the cause  of the cancer. The good news is that you can try a number of alternative treatments at the same time. This is a tremendous advantage over chemo which make it almost impossible for any other treatment to work because of the destruction of the immune system among other things.  

* This is not true of Cancell which works directly on Cancer cells not on the cause of the cancer and therefore has a higher  effectivity than most alternatives. For this reason, using Laetrile which does work on a Cancer cause it an excellent combination  and does not interfere with each other.  

What Chemo Does  

Chemo kills. It killed my sister who died of pneumonia after chemo destroyed her immune system. Renal failure has killed many  others after chemo destroyed their kidneys. There are so many accusations about the abuses inherent with conventional cancer  treatment that no less than eight books have explored “the cancer conspiracy.”  

Professor George Mathe, French cancer specialist, “Scientific Medicine Stymied,” Medecines Nouvelles (Paris), said in March  1989, “If I contracted cancer, I would never go to a standard cancer treatment center. Cancer victims who live far from such  centers have a chance.”  

Mainstream doctors receive distorted information on more than half the available cancer treatments. Therefore, you cannot rely on  mainstream doctors to recommend the correct cancer treatment. You must rely on yourself. If you can read the above two books,  you will most likely avoid:  

Being operated on to determine if your tumors are cancerous. The operation has a good chance of spreading cancer cells and is completely unnecessary because there is a urine test that is as reliable as a biopsy (source: World Without Cancer).  Being radiated at, but radiation is usually just a delay tactic and the side effect of radiation is cancer (source: The Cancer Industry).  Given chemo, which derails your immune system and wrecks your kidneys. If the cancer persists, and it usually does (World  Without Cancer by Griffin), your body will require months of recovery before most alternative treatments can help.  If you don’t avoid the above course of action, you and your insurance company will have spend about $200,000. Consider that one  out of four people get cancer, do the math, and you will have a feel for the most significant aspect of the cancer industry: $$$. You  can read a sample of the information in Griffin’s book relating to the success rate of conventional treatment including chemo on a  separate page of this web site. (That page must be printed separately.)  

Doctors in Favor of Alternatives  

Many doctors say that they support alternative treatments. But, these same doctors talk their patients into talking the dangerous  conventional treatments first. Then, after chemo has destroyed the patient’s immune system, they say, “OK try those alternatives  now.” This is backwards in the extreme. Doesn’t it make more sense to take the safer treatments first especially since all  conventional treatments are known to cause cancer?  

All substances can be toxic if taken in sufficient quantity. This is true of aspirin, sugar, Laetrile, or even water. But, unlike those,  the anti-cancer drugs are poisonous, not as a result of an overdose or as a side-effect, but as a primary effect. In other words, their  poisonous nature is not tolerated merely as a necessary price to pay in order to achieve some desired effect, it is the desired effect.  

These chemicals are selected because they are capable of differentiating between types of cells and, consequently, of poisoning  some types more than others. But don’t jump to the conclusion that they differentiate between cancer and non-cancer cells, killing  only the cancer cells, because they do not.  

The cellular poisons used in orthodox cancer therapy today cannot distinguish between cancer and non-cancer cells. They act  instead to differentiate between cells that are fast-growing and those that are slow-growing or not growing at all. Cells that are  actively dividing are the targets. Consequently, they kill, not only the cancer cells that are dividing, but also a multitude of normal  cells all over the body that also are caught in the act of dividing.  

Theoretically, those cancers that are dividing more rapidly than normal cells will be killed before the patient is, but it is nip and  tuck all the way. In the case of a cancer that is dividing at the same rate or even slower than normal cells, there isn’t even a  theoretical chance of success.  

In either event, poisoning the system is the objective of these drugs, and the resulting pain and illness often is a torment worse than  the disease itself. The toxins catch the blood cells in the act of dividing and cause blood poisoning. The gastrointestinal system is  thrown into convulsion causing nausea, diarrhea, loss of appetite, cramps, and progressive weakness. Hair cells are fast-growing,  so the hair falls out during treatment. Reproductive organs are affected causing sterility. The brain becomes fatigued. Eyesight and  hearing are impaired. Every conceivable function is disrupted with such agony for the patient that many of them elect to die of the  cancer rather than to continue treatment.

It is ironic that the personnel who administer these drugs to cancer patients take great precautions to be sure they themselves are  not exposed to them. The Handbook of Cancer Chemotherapy, a standard reference for medical personnel, offers this warning:  

The potential risks involved in handling cytotoxic agents have become a concern for health care workers. The literature reports  various symptoms such as eye, membrane, and skin irritation, as well as dizziness, nausea, and headache experienced by health care workers not using safe handling precautions. In addition, increased concerns regarding the mutagenesis and teratogenesis  [deformed babies] continue to be investigated. Many chemotherapy agents, the alkylating agents in particular, are known to be carcinogenic [cancer -causing] in therapeutic doses. (Roland T. Skeel, M.D., and Neil A. Lachant, M.D., Handbook of Cancer  Chemotherapy; Fourth Edition (New York: Little, Brown and Company, 1995), p.677.)  

Because these drugs are so dangerous, the Chemotherapy Handbook lists sixteen OSHA safety procedures for medical personnel  who work around them. They include wearing disposable masks and gowns, eye goggles, and double latex gloves. The procedure  for disposing needles and other equipment used with these drugs is regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency under the category of “hazardous waste.” Yet, these same substances are injected directly into the bloodstream of hapless cancer patients  supposedly to cure their cancer!  

Most of these drugs are described as radiomimetic, which means they mimic or produce the same effect as radiation.  Consequently, they also suppress the immune system, and that is one of the reasons they help spread the cancer to other areas. But  whereas X-rays usually are directed at only one or two locations, these chemicals do their deadly work on every cell in the body  As Dr. John Richardson has pointed out:  

Both radiation therapy and attempts to “poison out” result in a profound hostile in-imunosuppression that greatly increases the  susceptibility to metastasis. How irrational it would be to attempt to treat cancer immunologically and/or physiologically, and at  the same time administer immunosuppressants in the form of radiation of any kind, methotrexate, 5-FU, Cytoxin, or similarly  useless and dangerous general cellular poisons. All of these modalities, as we know, have been used to depress the rejection  phenomena associated with organ transplantation. The entire physiological objective in rational cancer therapy is to increase the  rejection phenomena. (Open letter to interested doctors, Nov., 1972; Griffin, Private Papers, op. cit.)  The view that toxic “anti-cancer” drugs usually accomplish just the opposite of their intent is not restricted to the advocates of  Laetrile. It is a fact of life (or shall we say death?) that has become widely acknowledged even by those who use these drugs. Dr.  John Trelford, for instance, of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Ohio State University Hospital has said:  

At the present time, chemotherapy of gynecological tumors does not appear to have increased life expectancy except in sporadic  cases…. The problem of blind chemotherapy means not only a loss of the effect of the drugs, but also a lowering of the patient’s  resistance to the cancer cells owing to the toxicity of these agents. (“A Discussion of the Results of Chemotherapylogical Cancer  and the Host’s Immune Response,” Sixth National Cancer Conference proceedings, op. cit.)  

Dr. Trelford is not alone in his observation. A report from the Southern Research Institute, dated April 13, 1972, based upon  research conducted for the National Cancer Institute, indicated that most of the accepted drugs in the American Cancer Society’s  “proven cure~~ category produced cancer in laboratory animals that previously had been healthy! (NCI research contract PH-43- 68-.998. Information contained in letter from Dean Burk to Congressman Lou Frey, Jr., May 30,1972; Griffin, Private Papers, op.  cit., p. 5.)  

In a courageous letter to Dr. Frank Rauscher, his boss at the National Cancer Institute, Dr. Dean Burk condemned the Institute’s  policy of continuing to endorse these drugs when everyone knew that they caused cancer. He argued:  

Ironically, virtually all of the chemotherapeutic anti-cancer agents now approved by the Food and Drug Administration for use or  testing in human cancer patients are (1) highly or variously toxic at applied dosages; (2) markedly immunosuppressive, that is,  destructive of the patient’s native resistance to a variety of diseases, including cancer; and (3) usually highly carcinogenic [cancer  causing]…. These now well established facts have been reported in numerous publications from the National Cancer Institute itself,  as well as from throughout the United States and, indeed, the world. Furthermore, what has just been said of the FDA-approved  anti-cancer chemotherapeutic drugs is true, though perhaps less conspicuously, of radiological and surgical treatments of human  cancer….  

In your answer to my discussion on March 19, you readily acknowledged that the FDA-approved anti-cancer drugs were indeed  toxic, immunosuppressive, and carcinogenic, as indicated. But then, even in the face of the evidence, including your own White  House statement of May 5, 1972, all pointing to the pitifully small effectiveness of such drugs, you went on to say quite  paradoxically it seems to me, “I think the Cancer Chemotherapy program is one of the best program components that the NCI has ever had.”… One may ask, parenthetically, surely this does not speak well of the “other program areas?”… Frankly, I fail to follow  you here. I submit that a program and series of the FDA-approved compounds that yield only 5—10% “effectiveness” can scarcely  be described as “excellent, ” the more so since it represents the total production of a thirty-year effort on the part of all of us in the  cancer therapy field. (Letter to Frank Rauscher, dated April 20, 1973; Griffin, Private Papers, op. cit.) There is little evidence for long-term survival with chemotherapy. Here is just a sampling of the negative verdict handed down by physicians, many of whom  still continue to prescribe it:  

Dr. B. Fisher, writing in the September 1968 issue of Annals of Surgery, stated:  

As a result of its severe toxicity and its lack of therapeutic effect, further use of 5-FU as an adjuvant to breast surgery in the  regimen employed is unwarranted. (“Surgical Adjuvant Chemotherapy in Cancer of the Breast: Results of A Decade of  Cooperative Investigation,” Annals of Surgery, 168, No.3, Sept., 1968.)  

Dr. Saul A. Rosenberg, Associate Professor of Medicine and Radiology at Stanford University School of Medicine:  

Worthwhile palliation is achieved in many patients. However, there will be the inevitable relapse of the malignant lymphoma, and,  either because of drug resistance or drug intolerance, the disease will recur, requiring modifications of the chemotherapy program  and eventually failure to control the disease process. (“The Indications for Chemotherapy in the Lymphomas,” Sixth National  Cancer Conference proceedings, op. cit.)  

Dr. Charles Moertal of the Mayo Clinic:  

Our most effective regimens are fraught with risks and side-effects and practical problems; and after this price is paid by all the  patients we have treated, only a small fraction are rewarded with a transient period of usually incomplete tumor regressions….  Our accepted and traditional curative efforts, therefore, yield a failure rate of 85%…. Some patients with gastrointestinal cancer can  have very long survival with no treatment whatsoever. (Speech made at the National Cancer Institute Clinical Center Auditorium,  May 18, 1972.)  

Dr. Robert D. Sullivan, Department of Cancer Research at the Lahey Clinic Foundation:  

There has been an enormous undertaking of cancer research to develop anti-cancer drugs for use in the management of neoplastic  diseases in man. However, progress has been slow, and no chemical agents capable of inducing a general curative effect on  disseminated forms of cancer have yet been developed. (“Ambulatory Arterial Infusion in the Treatment of Primary and Secondary  Skin Cancer,” Sixth National Cancer Conference proceedings, op. cit.)  

If it is true that Orthodox chemotherapy is (1) toxic, (2) immunosuppressant, (3) carcinogenic, and (4) futile, then why would  doctors continue to use it? The answer is that they don’t know what else to do. Patients usually are not scheduled into  chemotherapy unless their condition seems so hopeless that the loss of life appears to be inevitable anyway. Some doctors refer to  this stage, not as therapy, but experimentation, which, frankly, is a more honest description.  

Another reason for using drugs in the treatment of cancer is that the doctor does not like to tell the patient there is no hope. In his  own mind he knows there is none, but he also knows that the patient does not want to hear that and will seek another physician  who will continue some kind of treatment, no matter how useless. So he solves the problem by continuing the treatment himself.  

Note from Paul Winter: The reason the western medicine does not have good cancer treatments is well explained in the web site Cancer Research – a Super Fraud.  

In his book The Wayward Cell, Cancer, Dr. Victor Richards made it clear that chemotherapy is used primarily just to keep the  patient returning for treatment and to build his morale while he dies. But there is more! He said:  

Nevertheless, chemotherapy serves an extremely valuable role in keeping patients oriented toward proper medical therapy, and  prevents the feeling of being abandoned by the physician in patients with late and hopeless cancers. Judicious employment and screening of potentially useful drugs may also prevent the spread of cancer quackery. (Victor Richards, The Wayward Cell,  Cancer; Its Origins, Nature, and Treatment, (Berkeley: The University of California Press, 1972), pp. 215—16.)