|
Why Choose Alternative Cancer Treatment
Excellent info on alternatives to mainstream cancer industry.
Date: 7/7/2005 5:55:54 AM ( 19 y ) ... viewed 6751 times
Welcome to page two of “Why Choose Alternative Cancer Treatment?”. This series assembles a powerful sequence of incisive, outspoken (and often shocking) statements by cancer specialists, researchers and thinkers on subjects surrounding conventional and alternative cancer treatment. Numerous articles by medical researchers, personal advice & reports by former or current cancer patients, essays on avoidable suffering, the question why even very ill and suffering people - in spite of mainstream therapy failing to help them - may ridicule, reject, and attack medical alternatives in cancer treatment, and an introduction to the superior painless alternative to mammograms for women desirous of having their breasts screened, thermography, complete the picture...
Full introduction and complete list of Healing Cancer Naturally articles: Why Choose Alternative Cancer Treatment.
On Chemotherapy
[C]hemotherapy is basically ineffective in the vast majority of cases in which it is given
Ralph Moss, PhD, former Director of Information for Sloan Kettering Cancer Research Center
Chemotherapy is ineffective in treating most cancers, the exceptions being acute lymphocytic leukemia, Hodgkin's disease, nonseminomatous testicular cancer, as well as a few very rare forms of cancer, including choriocarcinoma, Wilm's tumor, and retinoblastoma.
paraphrasing Dr. Ralph Moss in Questioning Chemotherapy
Chemotherapy and radiation can increase the risk of developing a second cancer by up to 100 times, according to Dr. Samuel S. Epstein.
Congressional Record, Sept. 9, 1987
Testicular cancer has yielded to platinum containing drugs... It is extremely damaging to the body [impotence being one of many likely consequences), but it does lead to a very extended life for people with this problem.
Dr. Ralph Moss on Chemotherapy, Laetrile, Coley's Toxins, Burzynski, & Cancer Politics, Laura Lee radio show, 1994
...as a chemist trained to interpret data, it is incomprehensible to me that physicians can ignore the clear evidence that chemotherapy does much, much more harm than good.
Alan C Nixon, PhD, former president of the American Chemical Society
Cancer researchers, medical journals, and the popular media all have contributed to a situation in which many people with common malignancies are being treated with drugs not known to be effective.
Dr. Martin Shapiro UCLA
”Best book I've ever read on chemotherapy.”
Ralph Moss' Questioning Chemotherapy is a book that every person faced with cancer must read before submitting to toxic chemicals which may very well destroy the body's immune system. Unlike many alternative health authors who base their conclusions on anecdotal evidence, Moss uses the medical establishment's own research to prove that in almost all instances chemotherapy is NOT a viable approach to improving cancer survival rates. Moss also makes the important point that current cancer research has never bothered to examine the mental anguish, physical suffering, and poor quality of life endured by almost everyone whose doctors talk or scare them into undergoing chemotherapy. Learning about the economics behind chemotherapy drives the final nail into the coffin of a "therapy" that educated people in the future will consider outrageous and reflective of the current dark ages of so-called modern medicine. This is a must read book for anyone who wants to know the truth behind chemotherapy or anyone whose doctor wants to inject toxic chemicals into their bloodstream.
Chet Day’s review of ”Questioning Chemotherapy: A Critique of the Use of Toxic Drugs in the Treatment of Cancer” by Ralph W. Moss
Except for two forms of cancer, chemotherapy does not cure. It tortures and may shorten life -- no one can tell from the available data.
Dr. Candace Pert, Georgetown University School of Medicine
...chemotherapy is curative in very few cancers - testicular, Hodgkin's, choriocarcinoma, childhood leukemia. In most common solid tumors - lung, colon, breast, etc. - chemotherapy is NOT curative.
Dr. Jürgen Buche, Preventorium Institute
[D]espite ...widespread use of chemotherapies, breast cancer mortality has not changed in the last 70 years.
Thomas Dao, MD NEJM Mar 1975 292 p 707
Many medical oncologists recommend chemotherapy for virtually any tumor, with a hopefulness undiscouraged by almost invariable failure.
Albert Braverman MD 1991 Lancet 1991 337 p 901
"Medical Oncology in the 90s"
Most cancer patients in this country die of chemotherapy. Chemotherapy does not eliminate breast, colon, or lung cancers. This fact has been documented for over a decade, yet doctors still use chemotherapy for these tumors.
Allen Levin, MD UCSF The Healing of Cancer
Question: "How in the world, Dr Moss, can [chemotherapy] be considered a standard cure, when it works for 2-4 [percent of cancer patients], and very specific ones?
Answer: We are dealing with an industry. It is not supported by the facts. The way that it is done is this. The drugs are tested in test tubes, and they look for things that will kill cells. After you have found something that kills cells, cancer cells, cell lines which are very abnormal non-typical sort of growths, maybe a new life form almost, then you put it into animals. Then if it kills the cancers before it kills the animals, and shrinks the tumours, you consider you have an active agent. You then put it into people, and go through the 3 phases the FDA prescribes for this, and basically if you can shrink the tumour 50% or more for 28 days you have got the FDA's definition of an active drug. That is called a response rate, so you have a response.. Quite a bit [different from a cure] because when you look to see if there is any life prolongation from taking this treatment what you find is all kinds of hocus pocus and song and dance about the disease free survival, and this and that. In the end there is no proof that chemotherapy in the vast majority of cases actually extends life, and this is the GREAT LIE about chemotherapy, that somehow there is a correlation between shrinking a tumour and extending the life of the patient. [Or that there is a correlation between looking at a cancer cell in a test tube and the tumour in someone's body.] What happens as you grow those cells in cell lines they become very weird. Hundreds and hundreds of generations later they don't even look like even normal human cancer cells. They are things that grow under glass, immortal cells, unlike ... normal cancer cells. So much cancer research is very questionable because it is based on this cell line research.
Ralph Moss, PhD, former Director of Information for Sloan Kettering Cancer Research Center
CHEMOTHERAPY: AN UNPROVEN PROCEDURE
How can that be true of the main cancer treatment in the U.S.? Fact is, no solid scientific studies or clinical trials prove chemotherapy's effectiveness, except in a small percentage of very rare types of cancer. For solid tumors of adults, the vast majority of cancer, or anything that has metastasized, chemotherapy just doesn't work.
A German epidemiologist from the Heidelberg/Mannheim Tumor Clinic, Dr. Ulrich Abel has done a comprehensive review and analysis of every major study and clinical trial of chemotherapy ever done. His conclusions should be read by anyone who is about to embark on the Chemo Express. To make sure he had reviewed everything ever published on chemotherapy, Abel sent letters to over 350 medical centers around the world asking them to send him anything they had published on the subject. Abel researched thousands of articles: it is unlikely that anyone in the world knows more about chemotherapy than he.
The analysis took him several years, but the results are astounding: Abel found that the overall worldwide success rate of chemotherapy was "appalling" because there was simply no scientific evidence available anywhere that chemotherapy can "extend in any appreciable way the lives of patients suffering from the most common organic cancers." Abel emphasizes that chemotherapy rarely can improve the quality of life. He describes chemotherapy as "a scientific wasteland" and states that at least 80 percent of chemotherapy administered throughout the world is worthless, and is akin to the "emperor's new clothes" - neither doctor nor patient is willing to give up on chemotherapy even though there is no scientific evidence that it works! - Lancet 10 Aug 91 No mainstream media even mentioned this comprehensive study: it was totally buried.
Tim O'Shea in TO THE CANCER PATIENT
Also compare the detailed scientifically referenced article Death by Medicine at mercola.com/2003/nov/26/death_by_medicine.htm.
When any chemotherapeutic drug is spilled in the hospital or anywhere en route, it is classified as a major biohazard, requiring the specialists to come and clean it up with their space-suits and all their strictly regulated protocols. Yet this same agent is going to be put into the human body and is expected to cure it of disease? What's wrong with this picture?
Tim O'Shea in TO THE CANCER PATIENT
...and since a picture says more than a thousand words, here is a reduced-size rendering of the burning and scarring resulting “of a spill of chemotherapy onto the bare hand. Is it any wonder that people are worried about what might be happening to their insides as chemotherapy is intravenously fed into the body? Is it any wonder that chemotherapy nurses wear protective gloves? And is it any wonder that so high a percentage of oncologists refuse to submit to the treatments they advocate for their patients? Hazel had every right to be concerned about the internal damage taking place as she was being intravenously administered chemotherapy for her breast cancer.”
Full story and link to more pictures
...chemo drugs are some of the most toxic substances ever designed to go into a human body, their effects are very serious, and are often the direct cause of death. Like the case of Jackie Onassis, who underwent chemo for one of the rare diseases in which it generally has some beneficial results: non-Hodgkins lymphoma. She went into the hospital on Friday and was dead by Tuesday.
Tim O'Shea in TO THE CANCER PATIENT
PROSTATE CANCER
is one of the worst areas of chemotherapy abuse, according to Norman Zinner, MD. He states: "Most men with prostate cancer will die from other illnesses never knowing they had the problem."
Hormones have been used as therapy since the 1940s, with no overall improvement in survival. Early detection of prostate cancer has resulted in thousands of men being treated for a condition that would have been self-limiting. No figures are available for those who have died from the side effects of treatment when the condition would never have caused any problems or symptoms during the patient's entire lifetime...Some studies show rates as high as 40% in autopsies of men over 70 in which prostate cancer was discovered which the patient never knew about, and which was not the cause of death. (American Cancer Society, 1995).
There are no randomized clinical trials proving that chemotherapy for prostate cancer increases long term survival. Au contraire, a 1992 study published in JAMA demonstrated that there was no difference in 10 year survival rate between the men who did nothing at all and those who had treatment. (Johansson)
Tim O'Shea in TO THE CANCER PATIENT
In a survey of 79 oncologists from McGill University Cancer Center in Canada, 64 said they would not consent to treatment with Cisplatin, a common chemotherapy drug, while 58 oncologists said they would reject all the current trials being carried out by their establishment.
Why? “The ineffectiveness of chemotherapy and its unacceptable degree of toxicity.”
Philip Day, Cancer: Why We’re Still Dying to Know the Truth
Drugs tend to worsen whatever they're supposed to cure, which sets up a vicious circle.
Dr. Dean Black in Health at the Crossroads p. 20
THE BI-PHASIC EFFECT: WHY CHEMO DOESN'T WORK
Every time we put a drug in our body, two things happen:
1. what the drug initially does to the body
2. how the body adapts to the drug
Any example will do. Antibiotics? First, the drug kills all bacteria in the body. Then the body responds by growing them back, often with the bad bacteria out of balance, which come back in more powerful, mutated forms. Steroids? First, muscles are built because testosterone has been mimicked. Then the body responds by cutting production of natural testosterone, which eventually feminizes the athlete by shrinking the gonads... Obviously these are simplifications, but you get the idea.
“Drugs tend to worsen whatever they're supposed to cure, which sets up a vicious circle.” Dr. Dean Black in Health at the Crossroads p. 20
The Bi-Phasic Effect is well-explained by Dean Black and many other researchers who were trying to figure out why tumors seemed to come back with such a vengeance after chemotherapy. Some original work was done by American Cancer Society researcher Robert Schimke in 1985, who discovered that the way cancer cells resist chemotherapy is to replicate even harder and faster. Chemo drugs are lethal; so the cancer cells are stimulated to try and survive any way they can, which means faster growth. In the presence of any toxin, cells will resist it to stay alive. The more they resist, the stronger they get. Black sees cancer itself is just an adaptation; a normal response to an abnormal poison. Chemotherapy simply provokes adaptation. (Black, p. 45) This is why we all know people who have had chemotherapy and experienced temporary remission. But when the tumor came back, it did so with a vengeance, and the patient was quickly overwhelmed.
Schimke talks about the possible effects chemotherapy might have on a tumor that otherwise may have been self-limiting:
"Might such treatments convert relatively benign tumors into more lethal forms?" Robert Schimke p. 1915
Think about this the next time you hear an oncologist talk about "mopping up" with powerful chemo drugs just to be sure we "got it all." Or prescribing powerful chemotherapy for a "pre-cancerous" or even a benign situation.
To understand the bi-phasic effect, one begins to realize that drugs are fighting the body. The whole military motif - medicine imposes its will upon the body, even though we have vastly incomplete information to be doing something that arrogant.
Tim O'Shea in TO THE CANCER PATIENT
In 1986, McGill Cancer Center scientists sent a questionnaire to 118 doctors who treated non-small-cell lung cancer. More than three quarters of them recruited patients and carried out trials of toxic drugs for lung cancer. They were asked to imagine that they themselves had cancer, and were asked which of six current trials they themselves would choose. Of the 79 respondents, 64 said they would not consent to be in a trial containing cisplatin, a common chemotherapy drug Fifty-eight found all the trials unacceptable. Their reasons? The ineffectiveness of chemotherapy and its unacceptable degree of toxicity.
Famed German biostatistician Ulrich Abel, PhD, also found in a similar 1989 study that "the personal views of many oncologists seem to be in striking contrast to communications intended for the public."
”Chemotherapy Report”
seasilver.threadnet.com/Preventorium/chemo.htm
Because of the problem of nausea and vomiting caused by cancer itself as well as many chemotherapy agents and/or radiation therapy, many cancer patients develop anorexia - the loss of appetite or desire to eat. This situation is not good at all because it can lead to a condition known as cancer "cachexia" - a wasting syndrome characterized by weakness and a noticeable continuous loss of weight, fat, and muscle. It is estimated that roughly 40% of cancer patients actually die of malnutrition rather than their disease itself.
http://www.doctormurray.com/articles/chemotherapy.htm
If your friend touches chemotherapy, he's a goner.
Chemotherapy expert Ernst Wynder, former professor at Sloan-Kettering Hospital and recipient of a medal from the American Cancer Association, in a warning to a friend of professor Gearin-Tosh who healed himself of one of the most lethal cancers known using natural means.
[O]ne of the most important things I have ever heard was said to me by an oncological nurse. She was a member of an adult college class I was taking in 1989. When she found out I'd been diagnosed with cancer [and] was entering into treatment for lymphoma, she took it upon herself to say to me, unbidden and unasked, "Elliot, YOU have GOT to TAKE CONTROL of YOUR OWN treatment, or THE DOCTORS WILL TURN YOU INTO A PIECE OF MEAT." Truer words were never spoken! Because that nurse had thought it important enough to say that to me without my ever asking, I took what she said very much to heart, and I know her words saved me a great deal of grief!
E. Yudenfriend who cured himself of lymphoma, considered incurable by mainstream medicine
Why so much use of chemotherapy if it does so little good? Well for one thing, drug companies provide huge economic incentives. In 1990, $3.53 billion was spent on chemotherapy. By 1994 that figure had more than doubled to $7.51 billion. This relentless increase in chemotherapy use was accompanied by a relentless increase in cancer deaths.
”Chemotherapy Report”
More quotes and facts on chemotherapy
Also see On Conventional Cancer Treatment, On Drugs and
History of Alternative Cancer Treatment.
Recommended Reading:
Questioning Chemotherapy:
A Critique of the Use of Toxic Drugs in the Treatment of Cancer by Ralph W. Moss
More on Questioning Chemotherapy (US visitors)
More on Questioning Chemotherapy (Canadian visitors)
More on Questioning Chemotherapy (UK visitors)
On Cancer Diagnosing
Most cancers are not found until autopsy. That's because they never caused any symptoms. For example 30 - 40 times as many cases of thyroid, pancreatic, and prostate cancer are found in autopsy than ever presented to the doctor. According to a study cited in top British medical journal Lancet 13 Feb 93, early screening often leads to unnecessary treatment: 33% of autopsies show prostate cancer but only 1% die from it. After age 75, half of males may have prostate cancer, but only 2% die from it. This means simply that the immune system can hold many problems in check, as long as it is not compromised by powerful procedures. Guess which system is the most important to you at this time, more than it's ever been before in your whole life. Right - the immune system. Guess which system suffers most from chemotherapy and radiation. Right again. So the one time in your life you most need it, your immune system will be weakened by those therapies. If you're one of the few cancer patients who's refused standard treatment from the get-go - good, but your immune system still needs all the help you can give it.
A 1992 study in Journal of the American Medical Association of 223 patients concluded that no treatment at all for prostate cancer actually was better than any standard chemotherapy, radiation or surgical procedure. (Johansson)
Tim O'Shea in TO THE CANCER PATIENT
BIOPSY OF BREAST/PROSTATE:
”I was contacted by a lady who successfully dealt with her breast cancer from 1994 to present. She refused all conventional medical procedures. Last year her conventional oncologist convinced her that she was a fool not to get a needle biopsy. This lady now has new tumors growing at each puncture site. Of course her oncologist now has detailed information to help decide which chemos to use for this now rapidly metastasizing cancer. I repeatedly make this same observation with prostate cancer. I rarely see distant metastasis until after a biopsy -- and then it rapidly goes everywhere including the bones.”
Dr. Vincent Gammill, Center for the Study of Natural Oncology (CSNO)
Solana Beach, California (non profit)
More on Biopsies
Unexpected shocks can lead to cancer - brain metastasis wrongly diagnosed
...[Dr] Hamer named the "foci" formed in the brain in response to shocks HHs ("Hamersche Herde"...). When the [unexpected shock] hits the organism, immediate cell alteration occurs in the place in the brain which handles the content of the shock, and this content is always subjective. For instance, if a woman gets unexpectedly shaken by finding out that her partner has been unfaithful, the discovery about her marital misfortune is just the objective event. The clue to understand how this will affect her physically, is to know her personal experience, her subjective interpretation of the conflict. How does she experience this shock? There are several possibilities. If she experiences it as a threat to her "nest", the HH will occur in the lateral part of the cerebellum, and from there, modification signals are sent down to her breast. But she could as well experience it totally differently, such as a conflict of sexua| frustration, and if so, the impact at the brain level will be the left peri-insular part of the brain, followed by modification of her cervix. There are yet other possibilities. In other words, the location of the HH in the brain may vary from person to person and from time to time, even if the event objectively seems to be the same. The soul-body's interpretation all depends on the organism's experience up til the event.
This brain alteration can be photographed via computer-tomography (CT) and a fresh one looks like a dot with concentric rings surrounding it (like a target, or a picture of a water surface into which a pebble has been dropped), while one more progressed lacks rings, is larger and looks congested. ... radiologists have mistaken this phenomenon for a defect in the equipment or a "brain metastasis", the latter being very unfortunate because it has meant that lots of people have been forced to totally unnecessarily undergo dangerous brain operations. Certifications from CT manufacturers and careful studies of the brain cell formations finally established that the HHs fit neither interpretation, and that instead Hamer's explanation hit the nail on the head.
A. Stahel in My Interpretation of New Medicine: A Revolutionary Biological Paradigm
It's not the results of the "bone scans" or "CTs" which are of crucial importance ... but whether the cancer can be gotten under control or not. While many of the test methods used by us physicians are certainly scientific, they say nothing about the patient's state of health.
Dr. Budwig's approach is not a method of healing cancer but a technique which strengthens the body's own immune defence against cancerous cells.
Dr Armin Grunewald, MD, nephew of Dr. Budwig, who uses her approach in his office
On Mammography
Mammogram interpretations are unreliable. According to an article in the Journal of the American Medical Association (May 26, 1993) one study revealed a false positive rate in the range of 20% to 63%. This suggests that huge numbers of women are unnecessarily going through the pain, expense, and anxiety of biopsies.
Michael Phillip Wright in THE EPIDEMIC OF UNNECESSARY MASTECTOMY:
HOW NOT TO BE A VICTIM
Our current estimate is that about 75% of the current annual incidence of breast cancer in the U.S. is being caused by earlier ionizing radiation, primarily from medical sources.
John W. Goffman, M.D., Ph.D., Committee for Nuclear Responsibility, in Preventing Breast Cancer: The Story of a Major, Proven, Preventable Cause of This Disease
Compare Cancer Causes: Radiation
Mammograms ... is one topic where the line between advertising and scientific proof has become very blurred. As far back as 1976, the American Cancer Society itself and its government colleague the National Cancer Institute terminated the routine use of mammography for women under the age of 50 because of its "detrimental" (carcinogenic) effects. More recently, a large study done in Canada on found that women who had routine mammograms before the age of 50 also had increased death rates from breast cancer by 36%. (Miller) Lorraine Day [MD, who cured herself naturally from breast cancer] notes the same findings in her video presentation "Cancer Doesn't Scare Me Any More." [available at libraries] The reader is directed to these sources and should perhaps consider the opinion of other sources than those selling the procedure, before making a decision.
John McDougall MD has made a thorough review of pertinent literature on mammograms. He points out that the $5-13 billion per year generated by mammograms controls the information that women get. Fear and incomplete data are the tools commonly used to persuade women to get routine mammograms. What is clear is that mammography cannot prevent breast cancer or even the spread of breast cancer. By the time a tumor is large enough to be detected by mammography, it has been there as long as 12 years! It is therefore ridiculous to advertise mammography as "early detection." (McDougall p 114)
The other unsupportable illusion is that mammograms prevent breast cancer, which they don't. On the contrary, the painful compression of breast tissue during the procedure itself can increase the possibility of metastasis by as much as 80%! Dr. McDougall notes that a between 10 and 17% of the time, breast cancer is a self-limiting non-life-threatening type called ductal carcinoma in situ. This harmless cancer can be made active by the compressive force of routine mammography.
(McDougall, p 105)
Most extensive studies show no increased survival rate from routine screening mammograms. After reviewing all available literature in the world on the subject, noted researchers Drs. Wright and Mueller of the University of British Columbia recommended the withdrawal of public funding for mammography screening, because the "benefit achieved is marginal, and the harm caused is substantial." (Lancet, 1 Jul 1995) The harm they're referring to includes the constant worrying and emotional distress, as well as the tendency for unnecessary procedures and testing to be done based on results which have a false positive rate as high as 50%. (New York Times, 14 Dec 1997)
Tim O'Shea in TO THE CANCER PATIENT
In 1993 Dr. Julian Whitaker, author of the subscription newsletter Health and Healing, pointed out that since 1986, the number of mammogram clinics in the U.S. has tripled. Big money has been invested in these clinics, and investors profit by scaring women about breast cancer so they will start having routine mammograms at an early age. Breast cancer scare stories frequently appear in daily newspapers.
Michael Phillip Wright in THE EPIDEMIC OF UNNECESSARY MASTECTOMY:
HOW NOT TO BE A VICTIM
... over a period of 100 years, breast cancer treatment has evolved from no treatment to radical treatment and back again with more conservative management, without having affected mortality.
Dr. Edward Scanlon, professor at Northwestern U School of Medicine
in Journal of the American Medical Association, Sept. 4, 1991
As Alternative Medicine has maintained for years, mammograms do far more harm than good. Their ionizing radiation mutates cells, and the mechanical pressure can spread cells that are already malignant (as can biopsies). In 1995 the British medical journal The Lancet reported that, since mammographic screening was introduced in 1983, the incidence of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), which represents 12% of all breast cancer cases, has increased by 328%, and 200% of this increase is due to the use of mammography. This increase is for all women: Since the inception of widespread mammographic screening, the increase for women under the age of 40 has gone up over 3000%.
Mammogram interpretation is often wrong. In 1996, the journal Archives of Internal Medicine published results of a test of 108 radiologists throughout the United States. The test used a set of 79 mammograms where the diagnosis had been verified by subsequent biopsies, surgeries or other follow-up. The radiologists missed cancer in 21% of the films, thought 10% of the women with no breast disease had cancer and thought 42% of benign lesions were cancerous.
Further, mammograms are not diagnostic and too frequently lead to unnecessary breast biopsies , which are an expensive, invasive surgical procedure that causes extreme anxiety, some pain and often physical harm to many women who do not have cancer.
According to the 1998 edition of the Merck Manual, for every case of breast cancer diagnosed each year, from 5 to 10 women will needlessly undergo a painful breast biopsy. Statistically, this means that any woman who has annual mammograms for 10 years has at least a 50% chance of having at least one biopsy -- even if she never develops breast cancer.
http://www.AlternativeMedicine.com
Unfortunately, many of your public health programs, and commercial statements through the various media, provide you with mass meditations of a most deplorable kind. I refer to those in which the specific symptoms of various diseases are given, in which the individual is further told to examine the body with those symptoms in mind. I also refer to those statements that just as unfortunately specify diseases for which the individual may experience no symptoms of an observable kind, but is cautioned that these disastrous physical events may be happening despite his or her feelings of good health. Here the generalized fears fostered by religious, scientific, and cultural beliefs are often given as blueprints of diseases in which a person can find a specific focus-the individual can say: `Of course, I feel listless, or panicky, or unsafe, since I have suchandsuch a disease.'
The breast cancer suggestions associated with self-examinations have caused more cancers than any treatments have cured. They involve intense meditation of the body, and adverse imagery that itself affects the bodily cells. Public health announcements about high blood pressure themselves raise the blood pressure of millions of television viewers.
Your current ideas of preventative medicine, therefore, generate the very kind of fear that causes disease. They all undermine the individual's sense of bodily security and increase stress, while offering the body a specific, detailed disease plan. But most of all, they operate to increase the individual sense of alienation from the body, and to promote a sense of powerlessness and duality. Your "medical commercials" are equally disease promoting. Many, meaning to offer you relief through a product, instead actually promote the condition through suggestion, thereby generating a need for the product itself.
Examine the literature that you read, the television programs that you watch, and tell yourself to ignore those indications given of the body's weaknesses.
Seth in The Individual And Nature of Mass Events
Public health announcements and prevention programs, by their suggestive nature, create more instances of the diseases than they prevent!
Seth
The superior painless alternative to mammograms for women desirous of having their breasts screened:
Thermography of the breast (Thermograms)
(while the official term is Digital Infrared Imaging, this procedure when applied to breast screening is also known as Thermal Mammography, Thermal Breast Imaging, thermographic breast screening etc.)
Screening methods such as mammography (mammograms), CT, ultrasound, PET scans, MRI or breast examination detect a malignant tumor only once it has already formed and reached a certain size, i.e. years after its original inception.
In contrast, thermography ( FDA approved since 1982 as an adjunct screening tool in breast cancer diagnosis) detects cancerous or even merely "suspicious" spots or growths (malignant cell colonies) up to 10 years in advance of conventional methods which makes it the earliest detection method available. Thermography works by detecting (imaging) the early stages of angiogenesis, i.e. the formation of capillaries due to the cancer cells secreting certain substances; these newly sprouted primitive blood vessels supply tumour cells with nutrients and enable them to possibly grow into sizeable tumors. In addition to this vastly superior diagnostic accuracy and earliest possible detection of abnormality allowing for the earliest possible intervention, thermograms are painless (no application of mechanical pressure), comfortable, non-invasive, non-contact and free of intravenous injections and ionizing radiation, an established well-known possible cause of cancer. Thermograms are considered totally safe, including for women with breast implants or sensitive breasts and during pregnancy.
Information on thermograms summarized by Healing Cancer Naturally
Additional note on breast health screening via thermography:
A recovered breast cancer patient who has decided to use thermography as a screening tool instead of mammograms recommends care in choosing a thermography practitioner. Apparently thermography has been used for over 50 years, with the lesser accuracy of the original equipment making conventional doctors disregard thermography as a valid test. She recommends The Thermogram Center, 315 S. Boulder Rd., Ste. 110, Louisville, CO 80027, (303) 664-1139, http://www.ThermogramCenter.com and a talk with its very knowledgeable and helpful technician, Tirza Derflinger, CTT. Apparently you can call them for a certified location in your area.
Compare On Mammography, Biopsies of Breast/Prostate and On Cancer Diagnosing.
Also see On Cancer Business, Cancer Causes: Radiation and On Avoidable Suffering.
On Avoidable Suffering
Pam Young had breast cancer, innocently trusted her doctors’s recommendations (mastectomy, followed by TRAMflap ”reconstructive” surgery) which led to lymphedema (swelling of arm) and a horrible pain-ridden life as a wheelchair-bound cripple.
She, like so many (including a well-known person 2000 years ago), suffered unspeakably and died, perhaps so that others - by learning from her example - wouldn’t have to undergo the same: ”It is my desire to save other women from the same fate. There are alternatives to the ‘cut, burn and poison’ modalities used by the Allopathic doctors. If I can help save one woman, I will be thankful.”
Please listen to her.
Up until the pain became too great, Pam worked very hard to help other women who were ill and/or disabled from TRAM flap surgeries, breast implant illnesses, and breast cancer.
She created a book that resides in her home town library of Findlay, Ohio, which tells the truth about the dangers and risks associated with reconstructive breast surgery and cancer treatment.
She worked very hard to enact legislation in her home state so that women who are confronted with TRAM flap surgery would be given Informed Consent about this surgery prior to being operated.
Together with her friend Lany, she created the following informative groups:
BAAR, [Breast Augmentation And Reconstruction]
which is a public newsgroup that focuses on the risks of TRAM flap surgery, breast implants, and related issues.
TRAMflap
another public newsgroup to further provide research into the dangers of this particular surgery.
She contributed a great deal of research to the newsgroup, SBI Prayer Forum,
Her work and testimony remain in the archives of these groups.
Her last effort to help other women was the creation of the group
Alternative Breast Cancer
...expos[ing] the dangers of radiation from mammograms and [offering] thermograms as a safer alternative. It discusses unnecessary mastectomies and lymphedema caused by lymph node dissection. Complications of breast implants and tissue flap reconstructions are exposed. ... reviews the carcinogenic effects of chemo, radiation and Tamoxifen.
Non-toxic, non-invasive preventative, natural therapies for breast cancer [are discussed].
Second part of the above written by Pam’s friend Lany
“Alternatives to Pain Medication:
Natural Approaches to Relieving Cancer Pain”
is now here .
On Cancer Business
CHEMOTHERAPY: AN UNPROVEN PROCEDURE
In evaluating a therapeutic regimen, the only thing that really matters is death rate - will a treatment significantly extend a patient's life. I'm not talking about life as a vegetable, but the natural healthy independent lifespan of a human being.
Media stories and most articles in medical journals go to great lengths to hide the underlying numbers of people dying from cancer, by talking about other issues. In Questioning Chemotherapy, Dr. Ralph Moss talks about several of the ways they do it:
Response rate is a favorite. If a dying patient's condition changes even for a week or a month, especially if the tumor shrinks temporarily, the patient is listed as having "responded to" chemotherapy. No joke! The fact that the tumor comes back stronger soon after chemo is stopped, is not figured into the equation. The fact that the patient has to endure horrific side effects in order to temporarily shrink the tumor is not considered. That fact that the patient soon dies is not figured into the equation. The idea is to sell, sell, and sell. Sell chemotherapy.
Also in the media we find the loud successes chemotherapy has had on certain rare types of cancer, like childhood leukemia, and Hodgkin's lymphoma. But for the vast majority of cancer cases, chemo is a bust. Worse yet, a toxic one.
Even with Hodgkins, one of chemo's much-trumpeted triumphs, the cure is frequently a success, but the patient dies. He just doesn't die of Hodgkins disease, that's all. In the 1994 Journal of the National Cancer Institute, they published a 47-year study of more than 10,000 patients with Hodgkins lymphoma, who were treated with chemotherapy. Even though there was success with the Hodgkins itself, these patients encountered an incidence of leukemia that was six times the normal rate. This is a very common type of reported success within the cancer industry - again, the life of the patient is not taken into account.
In evaluating any treatment, there must be a benefits/risks analysis. Due to gigantic economic pressures, such evaluation has been systematically put aside in the U.S. chemotherapy industry.
Tim O'Shea in TO THE CANCER PATIENT
It’s difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.
Upton Sinclair
FDA drug approval: eye opening behind-the-scenes report on FDA advisers‘ industry ties
More than half of the experts hired to advise the government on the safety and effectiveness of medicine have financial relationships with the pharmaceutical companies that will be helped or hurt by their decisions, a USA TODAY study found...The experts are supposed to be independent, but ... 54% of the time, they have a direct financial interest in the drug or topic they are asked to evaluate...Federal law generally prohibits the FDA from using experts with financial conflicts of interest, but the FDA has waived the restriction more than 800 times since 1998...The expert panel's "consumer representative," whose assignment is to defend consumers' interests, had the most extensive financial relationship with Johnson & Johnson.
In recent years, the FDA has followed every advisory committee recommendation to approve or reject a medicine - except once... The federal agency is forbidden from using experts with financial conflicts unless a waiver is granted, usually on the grounds that the experts' value outweighs the seriousness of the conflict. The FDA grants these waivers routinely...Many financial conflicts are considered too small to require disclosure or a waiver and were not counted in USA TODAY's study. For example, a committee member can be paid up to $50,000 a year by a drug company without any financial conflict being disclosed if the work was on a topic other than what the committee is evaluating...Financial conflicts are so common that eight of 10 members who evaluated the drug Aggrastat, made by Merck, had conflicts of interest...
Dennis Cauchon in USA TODAY September 25, 2000, found at mercola.com/2000/oct/1/fda_drug_approvals.htm
I have the answer to cancer, but American doctors won't listen. They come here and observe my methods and are impressed. Then they want to make a special deal so they can take it home and make a lot of money. I won't do it, so I'm blackballed in every country.
Dr. Johanna Budwig
The field of U.S. cancer care is organized around a medical monopoly that ensures a continuous flow of money to the pharmaceutical companies, medical technology firms, research institutes, and government agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and quasi-public organizations such as the American Cancer Society (ACS).
Ralph Moss, Ph.D., quoted by John Diamond, M.D., & Lee Cowden, M.D. in Alternative Medicine: The Definitive Guide to Cancer
[Conventional cancer treatment is] big money. You have to understand that cancer is 1/9th of the overall health budget in the United States. The last figures I have seen from the American Cancer Society of money spent on cancer indirectly or directly at 107 Billion dollars. ... Cancer: we are talking about well over a million [new] cases a year, not counting skin cancer which probably equals that. ... About 630,000 people die every year of cancer in the US, and it really is an epidemic disease. We have got a tremendous industry. Every one of those people who is getting cancer and dying of it is going to be treated, and these treatments are extremely expensive. Chemo is tens of thousands, sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars. A bone marrow transplantation which is basically another way of giving chemotherapy or radiation can run to about 150,000 dollars per person, and is almost never effective. It kills about 25%.. [Why carry on doing it?] Because of the money, which is tremendous. If you look at the board of directors of MSK [Memorial Sloane Kettering] you will find that the drug industry has a dominant position on that board. One company in particular, Bristol Myers, which produces between 40-50% of all the chemotherapy in the world, and they have top positions at MSK hospital. [Doesn't that constitute a serious conflict of interest?] They are selling their own drugs to that particular hospital but they have written into the by-laws of the centre that it does not constitute a conflict of interest to sell their company drugs to the centre. They get around it by not taking a salary. They are not paid, they are volunteers. Look what happens. You have a man like Benno Schmidt, who was first head of the president's cancer panel under Nixon, then becomes head of MSK. He then goes on using the knowledge he gained at MSK to set up his own drug company to make tens of millions of dollars. [Another revolving door.] You bet, and a big one. We have had 50 years of American Cancer Society (ACS) brainwashing on the question of cancer, so most people out there believe we are making progress in the war on cancer. We are not, we are losing the war.
Dr. Ralph Moss on Chemotherapy, Laetrile, Coley's Toxins, Burzynski, & Cancer Politics, Laura Lee radio show, 1994
I suggest that all those who find it necessary to add other protocols or to add supplements to it have not even given the Budwig Protocol half a chance. They just don't look beyond the flaxoil/cottage cheese part. There is much more to it than that. It is a scientifically well thought out, all natural approach to health, that has a tremendous rate of success and track record... and it costs next to nothing. I think that if it were very expensive and much money could be made on it, it would be much more popular because it would be pushed by business. But as it stands, it doesn't lend itself to it. So you have to take it at practically no cost or go for some other high priced methods.
More Here
Add This Entry To Your CureZone Favorites! Print this page
Email this page
 Alert Webmaster
|
