Chemotherapy

Tell me if this story sounds familiar:

Someone you know finds out they have cancer. They have surgery, multiple rounds of chemotherapy and radiation. During treatment the cancer shrinks and disappears. The doctors tell them they can’t find any cancer in their body. They are “NED” (No Evidence of Disease). They announce to the world that they are “cancer free”. Everyone is relieved and excited and celebrates.

Some time goes by, and the patient has more tests only to find out that the cancer is back. And this time it’s spread to their liver, their lungs, their brain, their bones…

They go through more rounds of chemo and radiation, but the treatments don’t work as well the second time. The doctors can’t seem to stop the cancer. Every time you see the patient they look worse and worse. Eventually, after a difficult battle ranging from a few months to a few years they die.

So what happened?

This is what happened:

Chemotherapy is toxic poison. It works by attacking rapidly dividing cells in your body which affects your hair, nails, skin, your digestive system, and your blood. This process makes you very sick and can cause permanent damage to various parts of your body including your brain, liver, hearing, and reproductive organs.

Chemotherapy attacks rapidly reproducing cells, which includes some types of cancer cells, but it also destroys your immune system.

Note: Your immune system is what keeps you alive.

We all have pre-cancerous cells in our bodies that are eliminated by the natural processes of our immune system.

If you have cancer in your body, your immune system is fighting it, albeit not very well, but it is fighting it.

If the cancer is growing, that means your immune system could be overwhelmed or suppressed, and not functioning as well as it should. But having cancer doesn’t mean your immune system is doing nothing.

If you take chemotherapy and it doesn’t kill all the cancer cells, you will find yourself in a very vulnerable position with a decimated immune system. You will have little defenses left to prevent any remaining cancer cells from reproducing.

Here’s the scary part. If you still have cancerous cells in your body, they will proceed to take over like wild fire. I’ve seen it happen over and over with friends and family that went through chemo, and chances are, you have too.

Sometimes chemo will stop one kind of cancer, but then the patient will develop an entirely different form of cancer. The chemotherapy and/or radiation caused new new cancer.

Most chemotherapy drugs are carcinogenic, that means they can cause cancer. Many chemo drugs are so toxic that nurses have to protect their skin from exposure when administering it to patients. These chemicals that will burn through your skin, but they have no problem putting it in your veins.

Treating cancer is BIG business in America -- in fact, it's a $200 billion a year business. Yet 98 percent of conventional cancer treatments not only FAIL miserably, but are also almost guaranteed to make cancer patients sicker.

What's worse: The powers are suppressing natural cancer cures that could help tens of thousands of people get well and live cancer free with little or no dependence on drugs, surgery and chemotherapy.

The treatment of cancer in the U.S. is one of the most bald-faced cover-ups in medical history. Enough is enough! You deserve to know the truth about the criminality of oncologists and about the dangers of chemotherapy, conventional cancer treatments and the cancer "business." Chemotherapy kills more than cancer. Want proof? Did you know that 9 out of 10 oncologists would refuse chemotherapy if they had cancer? That's up to 91% -- a huge percentage that clearly shines a light on the truth: chemotherapy kills. Conventional oncologists are not only allowing this to happen, but they're also bullying many patients into chemotherapy and surgery right after their diagnoses.

Why would that large percentage of oncologists - the ones telling so many patients to get chemotherapy - refuse to do it themselves? Because they know it's not just ineffective, but extremely toxic. Regardless, 75% of cancer patients are directed to receive chemotherapy.

Not shocked enough yet? A rigorous review of chemotherapy revealed that it fails for 98% of people. And when chemotherapy was tested against no treatment, no treatment proved the better option. What's more is only two to four percent of cancers respond well to chemotherapy.

In a German study of women over age 80 with breast cancer, those who received no treatment lived 11 months longer on average than those who received conventional cancer treatments.

A 14-year study by two oncologists in Australia reported in the film "A Shocking Look at Cancer Studies" that conventional treatment such as chemotherapy for all of our major cancers is totally ineffective -- far below a 10% success rate.

 

A team of researchers looking into why cancer cells are so resilient accidentally stumbled upon a far more important discovery. While conducting their research, the team discovered that chemotherapy actually heavily damages healthy cells and subsequently triggers them to release a protein that sustains and fuels tumor growth. Beyond that, it even makes the tumor highly resistant to future treatment.

Reporting their findings in the journal Nature Medicine, the scientists report that the findings were ‘completely unexpected’. Finding evidence of significant DNA damage when examining the effects of chemotherapy on tissue derived from men with prostate cancer, the writings are a big slap in the face to mainstream medical organizations who have been pushing chemotherapy as the only option to cancer patients for years.

The news comes after it was previously ousted by similarly-breaking research that expensive cancer drugs not only fail to treat tumors, but actually make them far worse. The cancer drugs were found to make tumors ‘metasize’ and grow massively in size after consumption. As a result, the drugs killed the patients more quickly.

Known as WNT16B, scientists who performed the research say that this protein created from chemo treatment boosts cancer cell survival and is the reason that chemotherapy actually ends lives more quickly. Co-author Peter Nelson of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle explains:

“WNT16B, when secreted, would interact with nearby tumour cells and cause them to grow, invade, and importantly, resist subsequent therapy.”

The team then complimented the statement with a word of their own:

“Our results indicate that damage responses in benign cells… may directly contribute to enhanced tumour growth kinetics.”

Meanwhile, dirt cheap substances like turmeric and ginger have consistently been found to effectively shrink tumors and combat the spread of cancer. In a review of 11 studies, it was found that turmeric use reduced brain tumor size by a shocking 81%. Further research has also shown that turmeric is capable of halting cancer cell growth altogether. One woman recently hit the mainstream headlines by revealing her victory against cancer with the principal spice used being turmeric.

This accidental finding reached by scientists further shows the lack of real science behind many ‘old paradigm’ treatments, despite what many health officials would like you to believe. The truth of the matter is that natural alternatives do not even receive nearly as much funding as pharmaceutical drugs and medical interventions because there’s simply no room for profit. If everyone was using turmeric and vitamin D for cancer (better yet cancer prevention), major drug companies would lose out.

Chemotherapy is a barbaric and pointless procedure. It attacks and kills not just cancer, but also all the living, healthy cells in the body and completely cripples the body's immune system. While this extreme treatment has been called effective against testicular cancers and lymphocytic leukemia, in many cases it's hard to tell which the supposed "therapy" will kill first -- the cancer or the patient. In fact, it wouldn't be a stretch to say most people, who die from cancer, actually die from cancer TREATMENTS.

Mammograms do more damage than good (and preventive mastectomies are pointless)The $4 billion-a-year mammogram industry urges women to rely on these x-ray tests to "protect" their health. However, what they don't tell you is mammograms are a highly unnecessary and harmful treatment. In fact, mammograms harm ten women for every one the procedure helps.

A study by researchers from the Nordic Cochrane Center in Demark reviewed both the benefits and negative effects of seven breast cancer screening programs on 500,000 women.
For every 2,000 women who received mammograms over a 10-year period, only one would have her life prolonged, but ten would be harmed. This is because mammograms can actually INCREASE a woman's risk of developing breast cancer by as much as 3% a year by irradiating the breast cells and triggering breast cancer.

Modern cancer treatments = the "Dark Ages" of medicineIn the documentary, Cancer is Curable, available on NaturalNews (http://premium.naturalnews.tv/CANCER_is_curable_NOW__NN.htm), one alternative cancer treatment expert says someday people will look back and wonder "what kind of Neanderthals we were" for practicing surgery, radiation and chemotherapy (or cut, burn and poison). He also calls the conventional approach to cancer treatment "medieval."

Statistics show that there is no proof preventive mastectomy -- removal of the whole breast -- extends the life of breast cancer patients, yet oncologists go right on doing it on a regular basis. Preventative mastectomies are pointless procedures, and many patients are led to believe they have cancer due to false positive cancer screenings. This means they are pressured into having breasts removed for no reason whatsoever. The women undergoing these treatments are scarred for life.

CT scans, or computed tomographies, are a common testing procedure for most cancer types, but the irony is that this CT scan radiation is highly dangerous and can lead to cancer itself.
The radiation from a CT scan actually has been shown to cause a substantial amount of cancer. A recent report published in the New England Journal of Medicine suggests that the radiation from current CT-scan use (estimated at more than 62 million CT scans per year in the US) may cause as many as 1 in 50 future cases of cancer. This is nothing to be taken lightly. Radiation from medical devices is a huge and under-estimated contribution to the growing incidence of breast and other forms of cancer.

According to an article in Time Health, other studies prove doctors are performing too many unwarranted CT scans, exposing a countless amount of patients to cancer-causing radiation. Many mammograms are also miscalibrated, so they end up churning out far too much radiation to be safe. If a woman begins getting routine mammograms at age 40, then by age 60 it is almost certain she will have breast cancer.

It's no wonder so many women end up with this form of cancer - they begin getting frequent screenings starting in middle age at the urging of doctors everywhere. The health and cancer industries know about the connection between CT scan radiation and mammograms and cancer statistics, yet they keep pushing patients to perform these "preventive" procedures. The outrageous truth is frequent mammograms purposely bring repeat business to the corrupt cancer industry by creating cancer tumors over time.

Speaking of lies, virtually NONE of Komen's donation money goes toward funding actual cancer research. Up to 95% of the donation money at Komen goes to provide "free mammograms" to African American women and low income women - after all, they wouldn't want them to be left out from all this unnecessary radiation. Better ensure they get cancer, as well. Komen's money is almost entirely contributed toward doing more mammograms and pumping more radiation into women.
There is actually a little-known test for breast cancer that exists, and this method yields no false positive or negatives: a saliva test. Researchers from the University of Texas Health Science Center in Houston discovered that women with breast cancer carry different proteins than women with no cancer; this can be tested by a saliva test so simple a dentist could do it.

Big Pharma lies to convince us that their so-called cancer "cures" workOncologists and Big Pharma use clever tricks to promote their cancer treatments such as using relative numbers to supposedly prove the effectiveness of their cancer treatments. For example, if you or a loved one has breast cancer, doctors will likely recommend the drug Tamoxifen. They'll tell you it reduces the chances of breast cancer recurring by 49%, which sounds fairly impressive.

However, based on absolute numbers, Tamoxifen reduces the risk of breast cancer returning by 1.6% -- 30 times less than advertised. Relative numbers instead of cold, hard statistics are often used by oncologists because relative numbers can be manipulated in many ways. Any relative statistic that allows the percentages to be spun in a false positive light could be used in these situations.
Perhaps you have heard through the major media that treating early stage breast cancer creates a 91% cure rate over five years. This statement is absolutely ridiculous -- you could get the same cure rate by doing nothing at all (breast cancer is a very slow growing cancer).


The Action of Cannabinoids in Cancer Cells
Scientific Explanation How & Why Cannabis Kills Cancer

The point is: Don't be fooled by ambiguous "relative" numbers. Get the real facts!

Drug companies pay oncologists to promote (expensive) ineffective and toxic cancer drugs. Most oncologists don't make their money by treating patients, but by selling cancer drugs. In fact, according to the Journal of the American Medical Association, as much as 75% of the average oncologist's earnings come from selling chemotherapy drugs in his or her office -- and at a substantially marked-up price.

Pharmaceutical companies not only hire charismatic people to charm doctors, exaggerate drug benefits and underplay side effects, but they also pay oncologists kickbacks to push their drugs. For example, Astra Zeneca, Inc. had to pay $280 million in civil penalties and $63 million in criminal penalties to the federal government after it paid kickbacks to doctors for promoting its prostate cancer drug.

Many oncologists are criminals and bullies, not doctorsOncologists not only bully patients into taking the destructive route of chemotherapy, toxic drugs and surgery, but they also don't tell their patients the whole truth about the danger of these treatments, other available options, cancer survival

statistics, and much more. An innumerable number of cancer patients have suffered needless at the hands of these so-called doctors, who are often really corrupt and immoral human beings that could care less about the healing process of their patients. Many of these shameless oncologists deserve to be arrested and prosecuted immediately for the crimes they commit, yet they keep on sending patients down the same treacherous and painful road that has resulted in too many deaths to keep track of.
More and more patients are waking up to the truth about cancer treatment and educating themselves on the power of whole food nutrition and supplements -- they are choosing doctors that educate and heal them rather than bully them into surgery and chemotherapy. The staggering documentary Cancer is Curable mentioned earlier interviews doctors who tell you how patients are often pressured by conventional oncologists; sometimes they're even hustled onto the operating table the day after their diagnosis -- without having any of their other choices explained to them.

What's worse is that no matter how effective a treatment could be, conventional patients are still being killed by the food they are fed in hospitals. All the doctors in Cancer is Curable unanimously explain that sugar is the No. 1 killer for every cancer patient -- and although every medical doctor should know that fact, they still continue to give their patients tootsie rolls and candies in the chemotherapy room.

Many oncologists are also telling their cancer patients to stop taking antioxidant supplements while they're undergoing treatment. Why? Because they're saying there is a possibility that antioxidants could be lowering the effectiveness of cancer treatments like radiation treatment and chemotherapy.

In spite of what you might have been told or led to believe, chemo is hardly the exact science that it pretends to be. And yet, on the mere hunch that antioxidants could be protecting the cancer cells that chemotherapy seeks to destroy, oncologists feel justified in telling their patients to forfeit antioxidant supplements.

There are a ridiculous number of false positives in cancer screeningsAmong 1,087 individuals participating in a cancer screening trial who received a battery of tests for prostate, ovarian, colorectal and lung cancer, 43 % had at least one false positive test result, according to a study published in an issue of Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention (http://www.newmaterials.com/Customisation/News/Research_&_Development...). That's almost half of the patients who were tested!

One of the obvious downfalls of this is the needlessly expensive medical care costs associated with false positive cancer screenings. Considering the high cost of testing and treatments, the economic consequences of false-positive screening results are significant. Let's not neglect to mention the pointless emotional and physical suffering inflicted upon thousands of patients who are led to believe they have cancer.

In the study mentioned above, men that specifically were given a false positive result for either prostate, lung or colorectal cancer averaged almost $2,000 in additional medical care expenditures compared to men with all negative screens. More than half -- or 51% -- of the men in the study had at least one false positive test.

The lesson to take home from all this .These cancer cover-ups and myths are just a few basic examples of how corrupt and dishonest the cancer industry really is. This especially pertains to the oncologists, who are treating patients regardless of knowing the disturbing truth about the procedures, testing and treatment processes they so frequently push upon their patients.

While not all oncologists should be placed into the same category, a large majority of these criminal "doctors" should be held accountable and properly punished for the needless struggle they are inflicting upon thousands of cancer sufferers. If you know anyone who is being pushed into chemotherapy and other deadly and unnecessary "treatments," share the truth with them today and you could save a life.

Fortunately, more and more people are waking up to these cancer lies and are looking into safer and more effective alternative treatment protocols and therapies.
- See more at: http://www.cureyourowncancer.org/exp

http://www.whale.to/cancer/chemo112.html


Not Only is Chemo Ineffective...

By shrinking tumors, chemotherapy encourages stronger cancer cells to grow and multiply and become chemo resistant.

Then there are the new cancers caused by chemotherapy, or secondary cancers. This quaint side effect is often overlooked in the lists of side effects in a drug's accompanying literature, though you can find this information quite easily at the National Cancer Institute.

We pride ourselves in America for being technologically advanced and that our technology is rooted in a foundation of good science.

Wrong. When it comes to medicine, little at all is based upon science. Again we shall point to the Office of Technological Assessment’s paper: Assessing the Efficacy and Safety of Medical Technologies in which we are told that fewer than 20% of all medical procedures have been tested, and that of those tested, half were tested badly.

Medicine in America is not about healing.

When you are diagnosed with cancer, you are suddenly worth $300,000.00 to the cancer industry.
http://www.whale.to/cancer/chemo112.html


I am not a doctor or a scientist. I am a self-educated chemo-free cancer survivor and I often have people contact me who want to know more about what I did. So I am going to explain in the simplest terms what I have come to understand about chemotherapy. And why I did not do it.

Tell me if this story sounds familiar:

Someone you know finds out they have cancer. They have surgery, multiple rounds of chemotherapy and radiation. During treatment the cancer shrinks and disappears. The doctors tell them they can’t find any cancer in their body. They are “NED” (No Evidence of Disease). They announce to the world that they are “cancer free”. Everyone is relieved and excited and celebrates.

Some time goes by, and the patient has more tests only to find out that the cancer is back. And this time it’s spread to their liver, their lungs, their brain, their bones…

They go through more rounds of chemo and radiation, but the treatments don’t work as well the second time. The doctors can’t seem to stop the cancer. Every time you see the patient they look worse and worse. Eventually, after a difficult battle ranging from a few months to a few years they die.

So what happened?

This is what happened:

Chemotherapy is toxic poison. It works by attacking rapidly dividing cells in your body which affects your hair, nails, skin, your digestive system, and your blood. This process makes you very sick and can cause permanent damage to various parts of your body including your brain, liver, hearing, and reproductive organs.

Chemotherapy attacks rapidly reproducing cells, which includes some types of cancer cells, but it also destroys your immune system.

Note: Your immune system is what keeps you alive.

We all have pre-cancerous cells in our bodies that are eliminated by the natural processes of our immune system.

If you have cancer in your body, your immune system is fighting it, albeit not very well, but it is fighting it.

If the cancer is growing, that means your immune system could be overwhelmed or suppressed, and not functioning as well as it should. But having cancer doesn’t mean your immune system is doing nothing.

If you take chemotherapy and it doesn’t kill all the cancer cells, you will find yourself in a very vulnerable position with a decimated immune system. You will have little defenses left to prevent any remaining cancer cells from reproducing.

Here’s the scary part. If you still have cancerous cells in your body, they will proceed to take over like wild fire. I’ve seen it happen over and over with friends and family that went through chemo, and chances are, you have too.

Sometimes chemo will stop one kind of cancer, but then the patient will develop an entirely different form of cancer. The chemotherapy and/or radiation caused new new cancer.

Most chemotherapy drugs are carcinogenic, that means they can cause cancer. Many chemo drugs are so toxic that nurses have to protect their skin from exposure when administering it to patients. These chemicals that will burn through your skin, but they have no problem putting it in your veins.

 

A team of researchers looking into why cancer cells are so resilient accidentally stumbled upon a far more important discovery. While conducting their research, the team discovered that chemotherapy actually heavily damages healthy cells and subsequently triggers them to release a protein that sustains and fuels tumor growth. Beyond that, it even makes the tumor highly resistant to future treatment.

Reporting their findings in the journal Nature Medicine, the scientists report that the findings were ‘completely unexpected’. Finding evidence of significant DNA damage when examining the effects of chemotherapy on tissue derived from men with prostate cancer, the writings are a big slap in the face to mainstream medical organizations who have been pushing chemotherapy as the only option to cancer patients for years.

The news comes after it was previously ousted by similarly-breaking research that expensive cancer drugs not only fail to treat tumors, but actually make them far worse. The cancer drugs were found to make tumors ‘metasize’ and grow massively in size after consumption. As a result, the drugs killed the patients more quickly.

Known as WNT16B, scientists who performed the research say that this protein created from chemo treatment boosts cancer cell survival and is the reason that chemotherapy actually ends lives more quickly. Co-author Peter Nelson of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle explains:

“WNT16B, when secreted, would interact with nearby tumour cells and cause them to grow, invade, and importantly, resist subsequent therapy.”

The team then complimented the statement with a word of their own:

“Our results indicate that damage responses in benign cells… may directly contribute to enhanced tumour growth kinetics.”

Meanwhile, dirt cheap substances like turmeric and ginger have consistently been found to effectively shrink tumors and combat the spread of cancer. In a review of 11 studies, it was found that turmeric use reduced brain tumor size by a shocking 81%. Further research has also shown that turmeric is capable of halting cancer cell growth altogether. One woman recently hit the mainstream headlines by revealing her victory against cancer with the principal spice used being turmeric.

This accidental finding reached by scientists further shows the lack of real science behind many ‘old paradigm’ treatments, despite what many health officials would like you to believe. The truth of the matter is that natural alternatives do not even receive nearly as much funding as pharmaceutical drugs and medical interventions because there’s simply no room for profit. If everyone was using turmeric and vitamin D for cancer (better yet cancer prevention), major drug companies would lose out.

An elevated level of toxicity is actually the last thing any human being needs when fighting infection, disease, or pneumonia.

Over 75% of the oncologists polled said that if they had cancer they would never use the same chemotherapy they prescribe for their patients on themselves because of the ineffectiveness of chemotherapy and its unacceptable degree of toxicity.”
– Los Angeles Times report

The great lack of trust is evident even amongst doctors. Polls and questionnaires show that three doctors out of four (75 per cent) would refuse any chemotherapy because of its ineffectiveness against the disease and its devastating effects on the entire human organism.

This is what many doctors and scientists have to say about chemotherapy:

“Chemotherapy and radiation do not make the body well. They destroy, they do not heal. The hope of the doctor is that the cancer will be destroyed without destroying the entire patient. These therapies do kill cancer cells, but they kill a lot of good cells too including the cells of the immune system, the very system that one NEEDS to get well. If a cancer patient survives the treatment with enough immune system left intact, the patient may appear to get well at least temporarily, but he will have sustained major damage to his body and his immune system. How much better it is to nourish the immune system directly by the use of natural therapies to assist it in getting you well instead of destroying it by the use of these therapies. Then the immune system itself can kill the cancer cells without any side effects and heal your body at the same time.”
– Loraine Day, M.D. one of those women who cured themselves of breast cancer naturally

“The majority of the cancer patients in this country die because of chemotherapy, which does not cure breast, colon or lung cancer. This has been documented for over a decade and nevertheless doctors still utilize chemotherapy to fight these tumors.” (Allen Levin, MD, UCSF, “The Healing of Cancer”, Marcus Books, 1990).

“The five year survival rates for the major cancers are: stomach – 5%, trachea, bronchus and lung – 5%, breast – 50%, oesophagus – 5%, large intestine – 22%, pancreas – 4%, liver – 2% … attacking the tumor with the slash/burn/poison version of cancer therapy, and then pronouncing “cured” after the five year survival period has elapsed, has, of course, nothing remotely to do with the successful treatment of the disease. Patients who die from the effects of chemo or radio “therapy” after more than five years have passed are counted as cured. Being dead or dying does not exclude one from the figures of the cancer industry’s creative statisticians.”

– British Anti-Vivisection Association

“If I were to contract cancer, I would never turn to a certain standard for the therapy of this disease. Cancer patients who stay away from these centers have some chance to make it.” (Prof. Gorge Mathe, “Scientific Medicine Stymied”, Medicines Nouvelles, Paris, 1989)

“Dr. Hardin Jones, lecturer at the University of California, after having analyzed for many decades statistics on cancer survival, has come to this conclusion: ‘… when not treated, the patients do not get worse or they even get better’. The unsettling conclusions of Dr. Jones have never been refuted”. (Walter Last, “The Ecologist”, Vol. 28, no. 2, March-April 1998)

“Many oncologists recommend chemotherapy for almost any type of cancer, with a faith that is unshaken by the almost constant failures”.(Albert Braverman, MD, “Medical Oncology in the 90s”, Lancet, 1991, Vol. 337, p. 901)

“Our most efficacious regimens are loaded with risks, side effects and practical problems; and after all the patients we have treated have paid the toll, only a miniscule percentage of them is paid off with an ephemeral period of tumoral regression and generally a partial one” (Edward G. Griffin “World Without Cancer”, American Media Publications, 1996)

“After all, and for the overwhelming majority of the cases, there is no proof whatsoever that chemotherapy prolongs survival expectations. And this is the great lie about this therapy, that there is a correlation between the reduction of cancer and the extension of the life of the patient”. (Philip Day,“Cancer: Why we’re still dying to know the truth”, Credence Publications, 2000)

The overall contribution of curative and adjuvant cytotoxic chemotherapy to 5-year survival in adults was estimated to be 2.3% in Australia and 2.1% in the USA.” [Royal North Shore Hospital Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2005 Jun;17(4):294.]

The research covered data from the Cancer Registry in Australia and the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results in the USA for the year 1998. The current 5-year relative adult survival rate for cancer in Australia is over 60%, and no less than that in the USA. By comparison, a mere 2.3% contribution of chemotherapy to cancer survival does not justify the massive expense involved and the tremendous suffering patients experience because of severe, toxic side effects resulting from this treatment. With a meager success rate of 2.3%, selling chemotherapy as a medical treatment (instead of a scam), is one of the greatest fraudulent acts ever committed. The average chemotherapy earns the medical establishment a whopping $300,000 to $1,000,000 each year, and has so far earned those who promote this pseudo-medication (poison) over 1 trillion dollars. It’s no surprise that the medical establishment tries to keep this scam alive for as long as possible.Andreas Moritz, Natural News

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/023689.html#ixzz24YGbovoN

“Several full-time scientists at the McGill Cancer Center sent to 118 doctors, all experts on lung cancer, a questionnaire to determine the level of trust they had in the therapies they were applying; they were asked to imagine that they themselves had contracted the disease and which of the six current experimental therapies they would choose. 79 doctors answered, 64 of them said that they would not consent to undergo any treatment containing cis-platinum – one of the common chemotherapy drugs they used – while 58 out of 79 believed that all the experimental therapies above were not accepted because of the ineffectiveness and the elevated level of toxicity of chemotherapy.” (Philip Day, “Cancer: Why we’re still dying to know the truth”, Credence Publications, 2000)

“Doctor Ulrich Able, a German epidemiologist of the Heidelberg Mannheim Tumor Clinic, has exhaustively analyzed and reviewed all the main studies and clinical experiments ever performed on chemotherapy …. Able discovered that the comprehensive world rate of positive outcomes because of chemotherapy was frightening, because, simply, nowhere was scientific evidence available demonstrating that chemotherapy is able to ‘prolong in any appreciable way the life of patients affected by the most common type of organ cancer.’

Able highlights that rarely can chemotherapy improve the quality of life, and he describes it as a scientific squalor while maintaining that at least 80 per cent of chemotherapy administered in the world is worthless. Even if there is no scientific proof whatsoever that chemotherapy works, neither doctors nor patients are prepared to give it up (Lancet, Aug. 10, 1991). None of the main media has ever mentioned this exhaustive study: it has been completely buried” (Tim O’Shea, “Chemotherapy – An Unproven Procedure”)

“According to medical associations, the notorious and dangerous side effects of drugs have become the fourth main cause of death after infarction, cancer, and apoplexy” ( Journal of the American Medical Association, April 15, 1998)

Source:[http://www.heartcom.org/SayNOtoChemo.htm, NaturalNews.com,
http://www.curenaturalicancro.com/]

+1

-1

vote

vote

its very true,my wife died of cancer.I regret PUTTING her on chemo.!

Scientists based at McGill Cancer Centre sent a questionnaire to 118 lung cancer doctors to determine what degree of faith these practicing cancer physicians placed in the therapies they administered. They were asked to imagine that they had cancer and were asked which of six current trials they would choose. 79 doctors responded of which 64 would not consent to be in any trial containing Cisplatin - one of the common chemotherapy drugs they were trialling, (currently achieving worldwide sales of about $110,000,000 a year) and 58 of the 79 found that all the trials in question were unacceptable due to the ineffectiveness of chemotherapy and its unacceptably high degree of toxicity

When the cancer patient hears the doctor say "effective," he or she thinks, and logically so, that "effective" means it cures cancer. But all it means is temporary tumor shrinkage.

Chemotherapy usually doesn't cure cancer or extend life, and it really does not improve the quality of the life either. Doctors frequently make this claim though. There are thousands of studies that were reviewed by Dr. Moss as part of the research for his book -- and there is not one single good study documenting this claim.

What patients consider "good quality of life" seems to differ from what the doctors consider. To most it is just common sense that a drug that makes you throw up, and lose your hair, and wrecks your immune system is not improving your quality of life. Chemotherapy can give you life-threatening mouth sores. People can slough the entire lining of the intestines! One longer-term effect is particularly tragic: people who've had chemotherapy no longer respond to nutritional or immunologically-based approaches to their cancers. And since chemotherapy doesn't cure 96% to 98% of all cancers anyway...People who take chemotherapy have sadly lost their chance of finding another sort of cure.

It's especially telling that in a number of surveys most chemotherapists have said they would not take chemotherapy themselves or recommend it for their families. Chemotherapy drugs are the most toxic substances ever put deliberately into the human body. They are known poisons, they are designed poisons. The whole thing began with experiments with "mustard gas," the horrible chemical-warfare agents from World War I.

Dr. Moss' position on chemotherapy is supported by many major students of the study of cancer treatment. Following are some examples: Dr. John Bailar is the chief of epidemiology at McGill University in Montreal and was formerly the editor of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute. In 1986 the New England Journal of Medicine published an article by Dr. Bailer and Dr. Elaine Smith, a colleague from the University of Iowa. Bailer and Smith wrote: "Some 35 years of intense and growing efforts to improve the treatment of cancer have not had much overall effect on the most fundamental measure of clinical outcome - death. The effort to control cancer has failed so far to obtain its objectives.

Dr. John Cairns, a professor of microbiology at Harvard, published his view in Scientific American in 1985, "that basically the war on cancer was a failure and that chemotherapy was not getting very far with the vast majority of cancers."

As far back as 1975, Nobel Laureate James Watson of DNA fame was quoted in the New York Times saying that the American public had been "sold a nasty bill of goods about cancer."

In 1991, Dr. Albert Braverman, Professor of Hematology and Oncology at the State University of New York, Brooklyn, published an article in Lancet titled "Medical Oncology in the 1990s," in which he wrote: "The time has come to cut back on the clinical investigation of new chemotherapeutic regimens for cancer and to cast a critical eye on the way chemotherapeutic treatment is now being administered."

Dr. Braverman says that there is no solid tumor incurable in 1976 that is curable today. Dr. Moss confirms this and claims that the greatest breakthrough in the objective study of chemotherapy came from a biostatistician at the University of Heidelberg, Dr. Ulrich Abel. His critique focused on whether chemotherapy effectively prolonged survival in advanced epithelial cancer. His answer was that it is not effective. He summarized and extended his findings and concluded that chemotherapy overall is ineffective. A recent search turned up exactly zero reviews of his work in American journals, even though it was published in 1990. The belief is that this is not because his work was unimportant -- but because it's irrefutable.

With the extensive documentation in Dr. Moss' book, and all the statistics developed by the experts, why is chemotherapy still pushed by the large majority of oncologists? Dr. Moss feels that "there's a tremendous conflict going on in the minds of honest, sensitive, caring oncologists." They're in a very difficult position because they've been trained to give these drugs. And they've devoted many years to reaching a very high level of expertise in the knowledge of poisonous, deadly compounds. They're really in a bind, because they went into oncology to help the cancer patient, yet the tools they've been given don't work. And they see what happens to physicians who "step out of line" and treat cancer with alternative means.

Armed raids, loss of licensure, professional smearing and ostracism are some of the consequences. These could all be related to the quotation in the book made by Dr. Lundberg, editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association. At a recent National Institute of Health meeting, he said of chemotherapy: "[It's] a marvelous opportunity for rampant deceit. So much money is there to be made that ethical principles can be overrun sometimes in a stampede to get at physicians and prescribers." You never heard that on the evening news.

The economics of cancer treatment are astounding. Cancer treatment is close to $100 billion annually ($100,000,000,000). The chemotherapy part of that by 1995 will be up to $8.5 billion. Looking from another angle: the Bristol Myers company owns patents on twelve of the nearly forty "FDA-approved" chemotherapeutic drugs. The president, past president, chairman of the board, and a couple of the directors of Bristol Myers all hold positions on the board at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center.

Dr. Moss' book details the failures (and very few successes) for chemotherapy with more than fifty types of cancer, includes a complete description of the major chemotherapy drugs, and has a section about questions to ask your doctor. All of Dr. Moss' books and Cancer Chronicles newsletters are available from Equinox Press, 1-800-929-WELL or 718-636-4433
 

Not Only is Chemo Ineffective...

By shrinking tumors, chemotherapy encourages stronger cancer cells to grow and multiply and become chemo resistant.

Then there are the new cancers caused by chemotherapy, or secondary cancers. This quaint side effect is often overlooked in the lists of side effects in a drug's accompanying literature, though you can find this information quite easily at the National Cancer Institute.

We pride ourselves in America for being technologically advanced and that our technology is rooted in a foundation of good science.

Wrong. When it comes to medicine, little at all is based upon science. Again we shall point to the Office of Technological Assessment’s paper: Assessing the Efficacy and Safety of Medical Technologies in which we are told that fewer than 20% of all medical procedures have been tested, and that of those tested, half were tested badly.

Medicine in America is not about healing.

When you are diagnosed with cancer, you are suddenly worth $300,000.00 to the cancer industry.

Most telling, according to Ralph Moss in his book Questioning Chemotherapy, is that in a good number of surveys, chemotherapists have responded that they would neither recommend chemotherapy for their families nor would they use it themselves. One of our advisors, Dr Dan Harper, reported to us about an unpublished cohort study in which it was revealed that only 9% of oncologists took chemotherapy for their cancers.

Let’s hear from a couple of physicians and doctors who have not yet succumb to the heavy hand of the cancer industry:

"...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.

Walter Last, writing in The Ecologist, reported recently: “After analysing cancer survival statistics for several decades, Dr Hardin Jones, Professor at the University of California, concluded “...patients are as well, or better off untreated." Jones’ disturbing assessment has never been refuted.

Professor Charles Mathe declared: “If I contracted cancer, I would never go to a standard cancer treatment centre. Cancer victims who live far from such centres have a chance.”

“Many medical oncologists recommend chemotherapy for virtually any tumor, with a hopefulness undiscouraged by almost invariable failure,” Albert Braverman MD 1991 Lancet 1991 337 p901 “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.

“Despite widespread use of chemotherapies, breast cancer mortality has not changed in the last 70 years,” Thomas Dao, MD NEJM Mar 1975 292 p 707.

Additionally, Irwin Bross, a biostatistician for the National Cancer Institute, discovered that many cancers that are benign (though thought to be malignant) and will not metastasize until they are hit with chemotherapy. In other words, he's found that many people who've been diagnosed with metastatic cancer did not have metastatic cancer until they got their chemotherapy. 

For many cancers, chemotherapy just does not improve your survival rate. Some of these are colorectal, gastric, pancreatic, bladder, breast, ovarian, cervical and corpus uteri, head and neck.

Knowing this, oncologists still recommend a regimen of chemotherapy.

Here are two stories we received from Frank Wiewel:

When President Reagan had his colon cancer successfully removed by surgery, his health was reported daily as he recovered. On his return to work, a spokesperson appeared, proclaimed him cured, and that was that.

However, very nearly every patient who undergoes surgery for colon cancer gets put on chemotherapy afterwards. Why not Present Reagan?

Chemotherapy can cause cancer

An amazing admission is made on a web page supported by the US National Cancer Institute. Giving the reader information on the treatment of Wilm's Tumour ( a children's cancer which affects the kidney) the site goes on to state:

When very high doses of chemotherapy are used to kill cancer cells, these high doses can destroy the blood-forming tissue in the bones (the bone marrow). If very high doses of chemotherapy are needed to treat the cancer, bone marrow may be taken from the bones before therapy and frozen until it is needed. Following chemotherapy, the bone marrow is given back through a needle in a vein. This is called autologous bone marrow reinfusion.

Radiation therapy uses x-rays or other high-energy rays to kill cancer cells and shrink tumors. Radiation for Wilms' tumor usually comes from a machine outside the body (external radiation therapy). Radiation may be used before or after surgery and/or chemotherapy.

After several years, some patients develop another form of cancer as a result of their treatment with chemotherapy and radiation. Clinical trials are ongoing to determine if lower doses of chemotherapy and radiation can be used."

The site can be accessed at http://www.cancerlinksusa.com/kidney/wilm/treatment.htm
 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Did you know that 30 years ago Dr Hardin B. Jones, Professor of Medical Physics & Physiology at Berkeley, found that the life expectancy of untreated cancer cases appears to be FOUR TIMES LONGER than that of treated individuals?

1969 Science Writers Conference of the ACS

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chemotherapy is effective in only 2 to 4% of cancers----Hodgkin's disease, Acute Lymphocytic Leukemia (ALL, childhood leukemia), Testicular cancer, and Choriocarcinoma?

Ralph Moss interview 1995
http://www.livelinks.com/sumeria/canc/rmoss.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is no scientific evidence for chemotherapy being able to extend in any appreciable way the lives of patients suffering from the most common organic cancers, which accounts for 80% of all cancers? (Dr Ulrich Abel. 1990)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chemotherapy drugs are of benefit to at most 5% of cancer patients they are given to, but are routinely given to 50% of patients?

John Cairns of Harvard in Scientific American

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

75 % of oncologists, in one survey, said if they had cancer they would not participate in chemotherapy trials due to its "ineffectiveness and its unacceptable toxicity"?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Grouped together, the average cancer patient has a 50/50 chance of living another 5 years; which are the same odds he or she had in 1971?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

With some cancers, notably liver, lung, pancreas, bone and advanced breast, our 5 year survival from traditional therapy alone is virtually the same as it was 30 years ago?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

After $50 Billion spent on cancer research, the list of cancers responsive to chemotherapy is almost identical to what it was 25 years ago?
Questioning Chemotherapy by Ralph Moss, p81

the War on Cancer is a failure with a death rate not lower but 6% higher in 1997 than 1970?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Did you know that one of the worlds leading nuclear medical scientist, John Gofman M.D.,Ph.D. found that past exposure to ionizing radiation, primarily medical x-rays (eg mammograms), is responsible for about 75 percent of the breast-cancer problem today?
http://ratical.co./radiation/CNR?PBC/Overview.htm

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Radiation therapy does not improve the survival of patients with breast cancer !

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Did you know that the mortality rate for breast cancer in women over 55 was about 20% higher in 1995 than in 1970 (so much for mammograms)? (Irwin D. Bross, Ph.D.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Did you know that two large studies found an increase in mortality of women (under 55) from breast cancer who were regularly screened with mammograms?
 

http://www.alternativehealth.co.nz/cancer/chemo/index.htm