-Caveat Lector- The Cancer Scandal by Robert K. Lewis Cancer deaths in the west have risen from 4% in 1900, to 25% in 1996. We have been taught to believe that new chemicals in our environment have caused the sharp rise, but evidence indicates that something much more sinister is the cause. The two most common cancer treatments are chemotherapy and radiotherapy: Toxic poison and radiation. You will probably recieve both if diagnosed with cancer, but nowhere can one find any proof that they work. Instead, one finds statistical evidence that they do great harm. Other treatments that do cure cancer, without any of the torture of those two treatments, are rigorously suppressed with the force of law, and by a total media black-out and misrepresentation of facts by government organizations. There is a dramatic "series" of court battles going on right now to suppress a new non-toxic cancer medicine that actually works, according to the National Cancer Institute. Unlike the Simpson media trial which was created by the press, this doctor's cured cancer patients, and others still legally on treatment, picket outside the court, -but get no press coverage at all. First, check-out what these scientists have to say about chemotherapy and radiotherapy. This quote comes from CancerMed: Dr. Shapiro is hardly alone. Alan C. Nixon, PhD, Past President of the American Chemical Society wrote that "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." 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 chemo use was accompanied by a relentless increase in cancer deaths. >From MedInfo: Chemotherapy is an effective tool in extending the lives of colon cancer patients; however, only about 5% of colon cancer patients see long term remission, about the same rate as spontaneous remission. This means you chances are no better taking the toxic poison which is chemotherapy, than without it. The only differences are that you will suffer much more during your last few months and do irrepairable damage to vital organs. These quotes are also from CancerMed: The failure of chemotherapy to control cancer has become apparent even to the oncology establishment. Scientific American featured a recent cover story entitled: "The War on Cancer -- It's Being Lost." In it, eminent epidemiologist John C. Bailar III, MD, PhD, Chairman of the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics at McGill University cited the relentless increase in cancer deaths in the face of growing use of toxic chemotherapy. He concluded that scientists must look in new directions if they are ever to make progress against this unremitting killer. John Cairns, professor of microbiology at Harvard University, published a devastating 1985 critique in Scientific American. "Aside from certain rare cancers, it is not possible to detect any sudden changes in the death rates for any of the major cancers that could be credited to chemotherapy. Whether any of the common cancers can be cured by chemotherapy has yet to be established." In fact, chemotherapy is curative in very few cancers -- testicular, hodgkins, choriocarcinoma, childhood leukemia. In most common solid tumors -- lung, colon, breast, etc. -- chemotherapy is NOT curative. This 1995 quote about radiation therapy comes from Thomas A. Stamey, M.D: Professor and Chairman, Department of Urology, Stanford University School of Medicine. Much more worrisome, however, was the observation that the remaining 80% of patients had a steeply rising PSA with an average doubling time of 15 months for clinical stage B cancer (those tumors thought to be confined to the prostate) and 7 months for clinical state C cancer (tumors thought to be outside the prostate but within the field of radiation). Since their original doubling times for PSA before irradiation had to be substantially slower(3), we raised the question of whether irradiation converted the 80% who failed therapy into a faster-growing cancer. Because of these observations, we do not believe that irradiation of the prostate--by any technique--is currently justified until such time as the 20% who appear cured can be identified and clearly separated from the 80% of failures who may be made worse by the irradiation. I find this one particularly interesting because my house-mate has stage C prostate cancer and is scheduled for radiotherapy in mid Feb 97. It is planned to here publish the doctor's response to Dr. Stamey's web page, along with any evidence he can provide to show that it increases stage C survival term of mortality. Available evidence shows that neither surgery nor radiotherapy has been proven in a randomised trial to be effective in controlling cancer either by improving survival or reducing mortality. Radiotherapy can reduce recurrence significantly but without affecting overall survival. Chemotherapy has been shown in randomised trials to be effective in increasing survival by a few weeks or months only in one type of solid tumour - small-cell lung cancer. In view of the serious side-effects experienced, even this treatment must also remain questionable. This quote seems to confirm the increased rate of cancer growth after radiation. Radiation kills much of the tumour, but survivability is not extended because it grows back faster. Many more quotes by doctors and scientists are sprinkled about the web which support the conclusion that no evidence exists showing improved survivability from any of the cancer treatments recomended by the medical establishment. Rather, most of them are known to block the body's immune system, which is the only thing which does cure cancer, and kill large numbers of normal cells in uninfected vital organs. The advice given here is to challenge your doctor to provide statistical evidence that treatment by chemo or radiation will improve your chances before allowing their use on your body. If the treatments really do work then evidence should be easy to provide. Will doctors give you advice that they themselves would follow? Apparently, 58 out of 79 will probably not. In 1986, McGill Cancer Center scientists sent a questionnaire to 118 doctors who treated non-small-cell lung cancer. More than 3/4 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. 64 of the 79 respondents would not consent to be in a trial containing cisplatin, a common chemotherapy drug. Fifty eight (out of 79) found all the trials unacceptable. Their reason? 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." >From CancerMed: Most cancer experts believe we all develop cancer hundreds if not millions of times in our lifetimes. Given the trillions of developing cells, the millions of errors that can occur in the differentiating (maturing) process of each cell, and our constant exposure to carcinogenic substances (smoke, car fumes, radiation, etc.), the laws of probability dictate that mis-developing cells must occur frequently in the life of each individual. It stands to reason that a healthy body has a corrective system to "reprogram" newly-developed cancer cells into normal differentiation pathways before the cancer can take hold. In 1900, 4% of American deaths were attributed to cancer, and in 1996 25% of American deaths were attributed to cancer. Can anybody spot the growth "line" which predicts that everybody will die of cancer in 75 years? According to the American Cancer Society: About 544,000 Americans, or 4 of 10 patients who get cancer this year, will be alive 5 years after diagnosis. This might easily be rewritten as: About 544,000 Americans, or 4 of 10 patients who are diagnosed with cancer this year, will be alive 5 years after treatment. What is happening to cause part of the increase is remarkably simple, but subtle: Early detection and destructive treatment. Because the body usually heals its own cancers, and because cancer detection was so primitive in 1900, most people who got cancer never knew; it stopped growing before becoming noticable. Today most cancers are detected years before they can become noticable to the patient, and the patient is immediately started on a treatment process which destroys the bodies ability to fight the cancer naturally, and which has only a 40% survival rate. Radiation therepy is obviously harmful, and chemotherapy is nothing other than bringing the whole body so close to toxic death that most of the slightly weaker cancer cells die. Both are torture for the patients to endure, and put the patient under so much stress that the bodies ability to heal itself is severely crippled. In both cases the few remaining cancer cells, the hardiest ones, are left with little opposition from the diminished immune system. The body is given no chance to heal itself, and the cancer statistics are thereby stacked. The statistics are also stacked by not taking into account the fact that the likelyhood of natural cancer remission, the only kind of remission there is, is a factor of time. In the old days a cancer might be detected six months before death, whereas a cancer today can be spoted years ealier. When people accept early treatment, which is totally ineffective, they sacrifice much of their chance for the immune system to trigger natural remission. In the case of the six month diagnosis compared to the two year one, the patient has already had 300% more time for the natural cure than the modern patient ever gets, because the first thing modern doctors do is knock out the immune system and general health with treatment. If today's death rate is a few times higher as a result, it should suprise nobody. Chemotherepy is pure torture, and not worth the few weeks or months of time extension if it does not improve your odds of surviving. You need your vital organs intact if you want to survive the illness free of serious complications, but chemotherapy does them implicit harm. Unless you survive your cancer, you will never again feel good from the moment you start the treatment. I know because I watched my sister die of chemotherapy. Although she had lung cancer far removed from her kidneys, her kidneys failed shortly after a second bout of chemo, causing her death. The chemo killed her, or possibly the radiation, -not the cancer; though the cancer alone would have been kinder. In step with advances in early detection are greatly increased numbers of people being treated with toxic "medicine," and rapidly rising mortality statistics. You don't need to be a geniuse to figure it out. On the other side of the coin are the non-toxic cures that have been suppressed. The first example shown here comes from a man recognized as a genius, and who finished first in his class of 250 student scientists. What happens when you are an accredited cancer researcher and stumble onto a simple, cheap, natural, and non-toxic remedy for cancer which cures a majority of terminally ill patients in early testing? The FDA refuses your application for further testing, then mount an offensive mail campaign to your insurance company and other sensitive organizations, until a judge orders them to stop. They can't legally stop you from completing your current tests so they seize your truckload of records, including the files on active patients, and allow you to come to the head office anytime you need to photocopy a page or two, provided a days notice is given and that you bring your own photocopier. Then they finally haul you into court because some of your patients live across state borders and recovered enough to go home before the treatment was complete. They claim you committed mail fraud when you sent the medicine across state lines to those patients, but you did get a positive letter from your lawyer before mailing any medicine. Although many of your patients stage protests outside the courthouse and notify the press, the media ignores the whole thing and almost nobody ever hears about it. All this and much more, including several Grand Jury investigations which never returned any indictments, is highly documented as happening to S.R. Burzynski, MD, PhD, right now. This comes from the National Cancer Institute Report about Dr. Burzynski's medicine. The site visit team determined that antitumor activity was documented in this best case series and that the conduct of Phase II trials was indicated to determine the response rate. This says that the medicine does work, and that trials should be done to see how well it works. However, so many unusual legal roadblocks have been placed in front of these tests by the FDA, NCI, and Grand Jury that it is unlikely that they will ever happen. The intent is to keep the doctor constantly in court where his time is wasted, and ultimately to jail him for what boils down to curing people of cancer. Dr. Burzynski's medicine can be imagined to be a nutritional supplement because it is a natural product of the body. Here's a piece of evidence which proves that diet alone prevents cancer: So how is it that any of us gets cancer in the first place? Is it exposure to cigarette smoking, intense sunlight or perhaps the effect of toxic food additives? Dr. Krebs thinks not. All of the hard biochemical evidence points to the fact that cancer is a simple deficiency disease of vitamin B17, long ago removed from our highly refined, western diets. Krebs postulates that the so-called "carcinogens" are merely stress triggers that finally expose the B17 deficiency with devastating effect. The proof Krebs has presented over the years to support his claim is impressive. Centuries ago we used to eat millet bread, rich in B17, but now we chew our way through wheat which has none at all. For generations our grandmothers used to carefully crush the seeds of plums, greengages, cherries, apples, apricots and other members of the botanical family Rosaceae, and diligently mix them with their home made jams and preserves. Grandma probably didn't know why she was doing it, but the seeds of all these fruits are the most potent source of B17 in the world. In the tropics, large quantities of B17 are found in cassava, also known as tapioca. When did you last eat some? Independent research has also proved that a Himalayan tribe known as the "Hunza" never contract cancer of any kind so long as they stick to their native diet which is exceptionally high in both apricots and millet. However, once exposed to western diets they become as vulnerable as the rest of us. We can imagine that B17 increases the body's natural levels of antineoplastons, Dr. Burzynski's medicine, thereby effecting the same cure. Something known as spontaneous remission cures malignant cancer in untreated people. Because remission acts on all tumors at once, we know that something must be distributed throughout the body to achieve it. Since a nutritional link between diet and cancer is a fact, should we not assume that by following the Hunza's diet our cancers will more likely go into remission? You may try this using unbleached millet to make bread or anything else you can find a recipe for, apricots, and Grandma's old fashioned jam, in addition to regular treatment if you dare. Be advised that the FDA has made B17 illegal in most states because overdoses can be toxic. Since most drugs fit this claim, it is a poor defence: A handfull of people died out of over 175,000. Further, they did tests with B17 on patients where 80% died of their cancer, though they admit that 70% of them underwent radiation and/or chemotherapy first, making them very weak, and don't specify which ones lived, or which types of cancer were involved. Any physician reading this article will probably be shaking with self-righteous indignation at this stage, muttering to himself: "Yes, but where is the PROOF???" Right here! Most people have heard of "spontaneous remission", where the cancer simply goes away, hopefully never to reappear. Spontaneous remissions are exceedingly rare and vary from one form of cancer to another. One virulent variety known as testicular chorionepithelioma has never been known to produce a single spontaneous remission. Perhaps for that precise reason, Dr. Krebs singled it out for special attention when proving the effectiveness of B17 Laetrile in providing total control for cancers. As Edward Griffin recounts: "In a banquet speech in San Francisco on November 19, 1967, Dr. Ernst T. Krebs, Jr., briefly reviewed six such cases. Then he added: Now there is an advantage in not having had prior radiation, because if you have not received prior radiation that has failed, then you cannot enjoy the imagined benefits of the delayed effects of prior radiation. So this boy falls into the category of the "spontaneous regression... " And when we look at this scientifically, we know that spontaneous regression occurs in fewer than one in 150,000 cases of cancer. The statistical possibility of spontaneous regression accounting for the complete resolution of successive cases of testicular chorionepithelioma is far greater than the statistical improbability of the sun not rising tomorrow morning." Although this is a true story, forgiving the final exageration, it is also true that skeptical organizations and government outlets universally cite studies done on patients who first had radiation and or chemotherapy, and always fail to mention Dr. Krebs' miracle cases. Here is a model of cancer that seems to fit the facts. Damage to cells happen frequently, due to energy rays and reactive chemicals. When this happens the cell dies, and the body triggers a growth response in a nearby cell to replace it. That much is fact. However, due to dietary deficiency of B17, the signal to stop replacing the cell, antineoplastons, never arrives. The result is what we call cancer. This explains why conventional cancer treatments have no effect on cancer survivability: they do not send the halt signal and cannot kill every single cancer cell which has been programed to divide. Strong evidence linking cancer with pregnancy exists. Pregnancy is a condition where cells need to multiply, and one hormone responsible, chorionic gonadotrophic (CGH), is detectable in home pregnancy tests. What is not generally known is that such urine tests show some men to be pregnant, those with cancer, because cancer is runnaway growth associated with CGH. When cancer goes into remission, CGH levels immediately drop, as do a woman's after giving birth. Instead of searching for the chemical "halt" signal which ends CGH production, government cancer organizations focus on killing the cancer cells directly, resulting in death and unaccountable suffering in cancer patients. Although they will let you try some alternative cancer therapies, they will only do so after radiation and chemo fail, when your body is so ravaged by the treatment that there is little chance of a cure. Such trials of alternative therapies are normally only permitted with patients with advanced cancer. This is on the grounds that patients must first be treated with the "proven" therapies of surgery, radiotherapy and chemotherapy. This quote, again, comes from CancerMed: Dr. Shapiro is hardly alone. Alan C. Nixon, PhD, Past President of the American Chemical Society wrote that "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." 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 chemo use was accompanied by a relentless increase in cancer deaths. If you want to do something to help stop the slaughter, visit Dr. Burzynski's website, and especially help others find it too. Original Content © Copyright 1997 Your Health produced by WORLD NEWSSTAND Copyright © 1999. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Dave Hartley http://www.Asheville-Computer.com http://www.ioa.com/~davehart DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
