Introduction to Alternative Cancer Treatments - Part 2 The Great Deception

April 11, 2007

(Tony's note: Be sure to take a look at the quizzes in this article)Part 2 - The Great Deception

The Four Parts of Any Truth Table

If you are married, there is a greater than 60% probability

that either you or your spouse (or both) is going to be diagnosed with

cancer in your lifetimes! That percentage keeps going up!

At some point in your life you have probably heard about cancer

treatments that use natural substances, such as vitamins, enzymes,

minerals, etc. This type of medicine is usually called "alternative

medicine." What you heard about alternative medicine may have made you

feel good about it or it may have made you feel bad about it. Either

way, at the time, you probably weren't motivated to do the research to

find out the truth.

Perhaps, whether you have cancer or not, you

wanted to know the truth about whether alternative cancer treatments or

orthodox cancer treatments were more effective, safer, less painful,

etc. If you understood the process of finding the truth, you would go

through the four steps of the "truth table."

1) Learn the good things about orthodox cancer treatments, from the orthodox medicine supporters.

2) Learn the bad things about alternative cancer treatments, from the orthodox medicine supporters.

and you would (this line represents the symbolic "fence" between orthodox medicine and alternative medicine):

3) Learn the good things about alternative cancer treatments, from the alternative medicine supporters.

4) Learn the bad things about orthodox cancer treatments, from the alternative medicine supporters.

On one side of the "fence" are the people who represent orthodox

medicine, who will gladly tell you the good things about orthodox

medicine and the bad things about alternative medicine. On the other

side of the fence are the alternative medicine representatives.

If you were an expert on what the people on both sides of the fence were saying (i.e. you were an expert in all four items in the truth table), then you would be in a position to make an intelligent decision about which side has the best treatments.

The problem is that when people have heard the good things about orthodox medicine, from the orthodox medicine supporters, and they have heard the bad things about alternative medicine, from the orthodox medicine supporters, they think they are experts on both subjects!! But they are not experts in either subject because they have not heard a word from the alternative medicine supporters!!!

While this sounds like a simple concept, it is virtually

impossible for the average person to comprehend. Why should they listen

to people they have been told all their life not to listen to? I am

going to repeat that last paragraph:

The problem is that when people have heard the good things about orthodox medicine, from the orthodox medicine supporters, and they have heard the bad things about alternative medicine, from the orthodox medicine supporters, they think they are experts on both subjects!! But they are not experts in either subject because they have not heard a word from the alternative medicine supporters!!!

Here is the eternal truth: If orthodox medicine supporters (e.g.

the American Cancer Society) will lie to you about how good orthodox

cancer treatments are, then the orthodox medicine supporters (e.g. quackwatch) will also lie to you about how bad alternative cancer treatments are!!! That is why you don't know the truth about either orthodox cancer treatments or alternative cancer treatments!!

Thousands of times you have heard how wonderful orthodox doctors are

via: shows such as M*A*S*H, Marcus Welby, MD, other doctor and hospital

TV shows, news programs, magazines, advertisements, etc. These things

naturally transfer to you believing that orthodox cancer treatments

must also be wonderful (i.e. truth table #1). And you have no doubt

heard dozens of bad things about alternative cancer treatments (truth

table #2). Notice from the above table that both of these items come

from orthodox medicine supporters. In other words, you have heard all

of these things from the same side of the fence.

You have probably never heard anything bad about orthodox cancer

treatments (truth table #4), and in all likelihood you have never heard

anything good about alternative cancer treatments (truth table #3). Why

haven't you heard very much, if anything, from alternative medicine

supporters?

When you have only heard from the people on one side of the fence for your entire life, you should wonder why!

"An educated person is one who has learned that

information almost always turns out to be at best incomplete and very

often false, misleading, fictitious, mendacious - just dead wrong."

Russell Wayne Baker (1947 - ) American Journalist

Is what you hear in the media based on who has the most truth or is it based on who has the most money?

To demonstrate just how one-sided your information has been, answer

these two questions. First, when was the last time you saw a dramatic

show on a major television network where the hero was an alternative

medicine practitioner who was making alternative cancer treatments look

safe and effective? Second, name 10 of the most effective alternative

cancer treatments?

What you are about to read will contradict everything you have

heard in your life. Your natural reaction at times will be disbelief.

But if you are willing to spend the next hour reading this article

(i.e. about truth table #3 and truth table #4), it could very well lead

to a journey that will save your life or the life of a loved one!

This is a public service website, so I have no financial

interest in your decision. However, after studying all four parts of

the above truth table for hundreds of hours, I am certain it will be in

your best interests to continue reading.

Before going on, let us first clarify a key point. Some readers probably think that this article is about comparing:

1) Orthodox treatments, enhanced or complemented with alternative treatments (called "complementary medicine"), versus

2) Orthodox treatments without alternative treatments.

While this would be an interesting topic, it has nothing to do with this article.

This article is about comparing:

1) Orthodox treatments without alternative treatments, versus,

2) Alternative treatments without orthodox treatments.

In other words, this article is about using alternative cancer treatments, meaning the use of natural substances, instead of orthodox treatments. Welcome to truth table #3 and truth table #4. You need to start thinking about natural substances as a complete, stand-alone treatment for cancer.

An Alternative Cancer Treatment Quiz

Let's find out what you know about alternative treatments:

Question #1: Dr. Ewan Cameron, and two-time Nobel Prize winner

Linus Pauling, did studies in Scotland (which were duplicated by

studies in Canada and Japan) comparing Vitamin C therapy to

chemotherapy. Which group of patients, the ones on vitamin C or

chemotherapy, lived longer on average, and by how much?

Question #2: An American alternative cancer treatment doctor

treated 33,000 cancer patients, many of whom had been given up for dead

by orthodox medicine and had been sent home to die. What was his

verified cure rate?

Question #3: Fill in the blank: "In a review of 206 human

studies, [which food] consistently emerged as one of the top

cancer-fighting foods."

Question #4: How many Nobel Prize discoveries (and when were

they awarded) did Dr. Johanna Budwig use to help her develop the

Flaxseed Oil (omega 3) / Cottage Cheese (sulphur proteins) cancer

treatment?

Question #5: It is absurd to think that a person can be cured of

cancer simply by changing their diet. Only professionals can cure

cancer. True or false?

Let's answer these questions.

Question #1

Question #1: Dr. Ewan Cameron, and two-time Nobel Prize winner

Linus Pauling, did studies in Scotland (which were duplicated by

studies in Canada and Japan) comparing Vitamin C therapy to

chemotherapy. Which group of patients, the ones on vitamin C or

chemotherapy, lived longer on average, and by how much?

Answer: The vitamin C patients lived an average of six times longer

than the chemotherapy patients. I don't know why anyone would be

surprised at this result. Cancer in many cases is nothing but a symptom

of a weakened immune system. Chemotherapy virtually destroys an already

weakened immune system, and it is the immune system that deals with

cancer on a normal basis. On the other hand, Vitamin C helps build the

immune system. It makes sense that someone who has had their immune

system built up would outlive someone who had their immune system

destroyed.

Because Dr. Pauling was world famous, and had an impeccable

reputation for quality and integrity, a person might wonder why the

orthodox medical community did not do further studies on Vitamin C and

cancer. They did do further studies on Vitamin C. But the purpose of these studies was not what you would expect. I will say more about this later in this article.

Question #2

Question #2: An American alternative cancer treatment doctor

treated 33,000 cancer patients, many of whom had been given up for dead

by orthodox medicine and had been sent home to die. What was his

verified cure rate?

Answer: Dr. William Donald Kelley, a dentist by training, had a 93% cure rate

on patients who lived 1 to 1.5 years after starting his treatment. This

cure rate was verified by a 5-year study by an orthodox doctor. His

technique is called "metabolic" therapy, and guess what, it was

designed to build the immune system and safely and selectively kill

cancer cells.

But what is of even more significance is the answer to this

question: "if we factor out all of his patients who went to orthodox

doctors before they went to Dr. Kelley, and only counted those who went to Dr. Kelley first, what would his cure rate have been?"

First of all, even for orthodox medicine the vast majority of cancer

patients live for at least a year and a half after their first

diagnosis. But for Dr. Kelley it is logical to conclude that an even

higher percentage of cancer patients, who went to him first, lived for

at least a year and a half because Dr. Kelley's treatment does not

damage the immune system, rather it builds the immune system.

Furthermore, Dr. Kelley had a high cure rate even for pancreatic cancer

patients who went to him first.

In other words, virtually all of the cancer patients who went

to Dr. Kelley first were in the group that had a 93% cure rate! If we

further make the even more obvious conclusion that among those cancer

patients in the 93% statistic, those who went to him first had at least

as high a cure rate as those who went to orthodox medicine first, then

we can logically conclude that his cure rate on patients who went to

him first was probably around 90%.

All of this is a highly logical conclusion for three reasons:

First, he used the identical treatment regardless of whether his patient went to him first or orthodox medicine first,

Second, for those patients who went to orthodox medicine

first, Dr. Kelley lost a lot of time before he was able to start

treating these patients. In other words, he started their treatments

after their cancer was further along (compared to those who went to him

first), and

Third, those patients who went to orthodox medicine first

had their immune systems severely compromised before they went to Dr.

Kelley (in other words, for those who went to Dr. Kelley first, they

still had their immune system intact), thus Dr. Kelley had to rebuild

that portion of their immune system before his treatment started to

become fully effective. This loss of time was in addition to the lost

time caused by these patients going to orthodox medicine first.

In other words, it is obvious that if 10,000 new cancer patients, who had not had any orthodox treatments, went to Dr. Kelley first, his

overall cure rate for these people would be close to 90%, and perhaps

even higher! That is far, far higher than the patients who go to

orthodox medicine first.

In fact, as will be shown below, when you factor out all of the fancy

statistical tricks of orthodox medicine, such as their "5-year cure

rate," the true cure rate for orthodox medicine is 3%. Thus, patients

who went to Dr. Kelley FIRST had a THIRTY TIMES higher chance of surviving their cancer than those who went to orthodox medicine exclusively.

Dr. Kelley's reward by orthodox medicine for his high cure rate was to

be thrown in jail. Kelley also had to move his treatment to Mexico.

Fortunately, he wrote a book about his treatment: Cancer, Curing The Incurable Without Surgery, Chemotherapy or Radiation before his death in early 2005.

Because Dr. Kelley had such an incredibly high cure rate for cancer,

much, much higher than orthodox medicine, you might wonder why the

orthodox medical community does not study Dr. Kelley's treatment to see

if there are ways to improve it.

In other words, why doesn't the orthodox community use Dr. Kelley's

treatment in order to obtain a quick and immediate 90% cure rate for

new cancer patients, then find ways to improve on it to get even higher

cure rates? Why are they content with a 3% cure rate when there is

a publicly available treatment that has a 90% cure rate on new

patients?

After reading Part II of this article the answer to that question will become obvious.

While the Kelley Metabolic treatment is perfectly capable of

curing a person's a cancer, I should note that it is not advised that

it be the primary treatment for someone who has been on chemotherapy.

Some newer treatments do not depend on building the immune system

before they fully work, thus they are far more effective on patients

who have had their immune system compromised by chemotherapy.

Question #3

Question #3: Fill in the blank: "In a review of 206 human

studies, [which food] consistently emerged as one of the top

cancer-fighting foods."

Answer: Here is the complete quote: "In a review of 206 human studies, carrots

consistently emerged as one of the top cancer-fighting foods. The power

of carrots lies in the group of pigments called carotenoids

(beta-carotene is among this group), which give them their orange

color."

While it is nice that scientists have made this discovery, carrots were

used to cure cancer long before any of the 206 human studies the quote

refers to. Raw vegetable juices, with raw carrots as the main

ingredient, coupled with a customized vegan diet, as a replacement for

the meat and dairy centered "Western" diet, has cured many, many

thousands of people of cancer.

I might add that carrot juice is the main ingredient in the

vegetable juice that serves at the heart of the "Raw Food Diet," for

which there is an article on this web site.

Question #4

Question #4: How many Nobel Prize discoveries (and when were

they awarded) did Dr. Johanna Budwig use to help her develop the

Flaxseed Oil (omega 3) / Cottage Cheese (sulphur proteins) cancer

treatment?

Answer: Two Nobel Prizes, Dr. Otto Warburg (1931) and Dr. Albert Szent-Gyorgyi (1937). First, Dr. Warburg:

"Dr Otto Warburg, twice Nobel laureate was able to prove

that cancer cannot grow in an high oxygen environment. He states:

`Cancer, above all diseases, has countless secondary causes, but there

is only one prime cause: the prime cause of cancer is the replacement

of normal oxygen respiration of body cells by anaerobic respiration'.

In other words, lack of oxygen. His research revealed that when a cell

is denied 60% of its normal requirement of oxygen, it switches to a

fermentation mechanism and grows out of control."

http://www.internethealthlibrary.com/Therapies/OxygenTherapy.htm

Second, Dr. Szent-Gyorgyi:

"Dr. Szent-Gyorgy won the Nobel Prize in 1937 for

discovering that essential fatty acids combined with sulphur-rich

proteins (such as those found in diary products) increases oxygenation

of the body."

http://www.healingdaily.com/conditions/cancer-prevention-measures.htm

Note that both of these Nobel Prizes were awarded in the 1930s. Dr.

Budwig developed a diet to combine these two discoveries into one

simple treatment plan - flaxseed oil and cottage cheese. Her treatment

has cured untold thousands of cancer patients.

Question #5

Question #5: It is absurd to think that a person can be cured of

cancer simply by changing their diet. Only professionals can cure

cancer. True or false?

Answer: I quote from alternative medicine expert Walter Last:

"To show how simple natural methods can be very

effective in overcoming advanced cancer, I like to mention an example

from the book The Food and Health of Western Man by Dr J. L.

Mount. In five reported cases of bowel cancer, surgery revealed that

metastases had already spread all over the body. Therefore, these

patients were just closed up again and sent home to die. But instead of

doing that, independently of each other, these five changed their diets

and from then on ate only homegrown organically raised food. When they

finally did die 21 to 30 years later, no traces of cancer could be

found in post-mortem examinations. Such cures without medical

intervention are regarded as 'spontaneous remissions'."

http://www.mrbean.net.au/~wlast/cancerintroduction.html

The vast majority of cancer patients who go into "spontaneous

remission" made massive changes in their diet after being diagnosed

with cancer.

"A study was done on 200 cancer patients who had

experienced "spontaneous remission." Doctors call these remissions

"miracles." They're NOT miracles. Here's how they did it. Eighty seven

percent of them fundamentally changed their diets - mostly to

vegetarian. All of the 200 made changes in their lives including

nutritional supplementation and detoxification techniques. What this

and other studies are telling us is that cancer can be cured by fundamentally changing the chemistry that created it."

Raymond Francis (http://www.aidsinfobbs.org/articles/quilty/q02/732)

Here is another interesting quote:

"A study of four hundred cancer cases that went into

spontaneous remission revealed cures which had little in common. Some

people drank grape juice or swallowed massive doses of vitamin C;

others prayed, took herbal remedies, or simply cheered themselves on.

These very diverse patients did have one thing in common, though. At a

certain point in their disease, they suddenly knew, with complete

certainty, that they were going to get better, as if the disease were

merely a mirage, and the patient suddenly passed beyond it into a space

where fear and despair and all sickness were nonexistent."

http://www.paksearch.com/globe/1999/April/HIGHER.html

While it is true that many people go into spontaneous remission by

dramatically changing their diet and attitude, imagine what would

happen if newly diagnosed cancer patients were told:

1) What foods contained the most cancer-killing nutrients,

2) What foods contained the best nutrients to build the immune system,

3) What foods feed cancer cells and thus cause the cancer to grow faster (these are foods to avoid),

4) The best supplements to kill cancer cells and build the immune system, and they were told

5) What things in a person's life can damage a natural treatment plan (e.g. chlorine in tap water)?

For example, changing to a vegan diet would not necessarily cure cancer, but going on a selective vegan diet and eating only

the vegetables and fruits known to contain large amounts of cancer

killing nutrients, and avoiding foods that feed the cancer, and

avoiding foods that interfere with the effectiveness of the

cancer-fighting foods, would yield a much higher cure rate than any

orthodox treatment, even better than Vitamin C therapy. But alternative

medicine can do much better than even this selective vegan protocol.

An Orthodox Cancer Treatment Quiz

Now let's test your knowledge of orthodox medicine. First, we need to define a term:

Definition: total life The length of time between the

diagnosis of cancer and the death of the cancer patient, whether it is

death by cancer, death by cancer treatment or death by any other cause.

This is also called "survival time."

Question #1: Chemotherapy and radiation put people into

"remission." Putting people into remission proves that the "total life"

(see above definition) of a person is significantly increased by using

chemotherapy and radiation. True or false?

Question #2: If a cancer patient lives 5 years after diagnosis,

orthodox medicine considers that they are "cured" of cancer. Is this

concept mathematically equivalent to the concept of "total life?"

Question #3: The FDA would never approve a chemotherapy drug

unless it was scientifically proven, beyond any doubt, that the drug

significantly extends the "total life" of a cancer patient. True or

false?

Question #4: Among the thousands of scientific studies on

chemotherapy, there is massive scientific evidence that chemotherapy

extends the "total life" of cancer patients compared to those who

refuse all treatment. True or false?

Question #5: Orthodox proponents claim that for some kinds of

cancer, "cure rates" have gone up over the past 10 or 20 years. They

claim this is just another proof that orthodox treatments are superior

to alternative treatments. Do you agree?

Now the answers.

Question #1

Question #1: Chemotherapy and radiation put people into

"remission." Putting people into remission proves that the "total life"

(see above definition) of a person is significantly increased by using

chemotherapy and radiation. True or false?

Answer: People equate the concept of "remission" with the

concept of "cure." Technically, "remission" means nothing more than one

or more of the symptoms of the cancer are gone (e.g.

destroying a tumor may put a cancer patient into "remission"). However,

even if a tumor is destroyed, for example, and the person is judged to

be in "remission," there still may be many areas of concentrated cancer

cells in the body. Thus a person can still have potentially damaging

areas of cancer in their body and they can still be considered to be in

"remission."

There has never been scientific proof that the treatment of symptoms

generally relates to a longer "total life." In other words, there has

never been scientific proof that the concept of removing "symptoms" and

the concept of increasing "total life" are related. Indeed, the "total

life" of cancer patients has barely changed in over 80 years in spite

of many improvements in treating symptoms.

Furthermore, while many people do go into remission, for some

types of cancer more than 90% of the people that go into remission will

come out of remission (which is called "regression") and will later die

of cancer. "Total Life" has to do with the eventual death of the

patient, not the treatment of the symptoms of cancer. Consider this

quote:

"Ovarian cancer is usually detected at an advanced stage

and, as such, is one of the deadliest and most difficult cancers to

treat. Therapy can eradicate the tumors, but most patients relapse

within two years ... Normally, when a woman is diagnosed with ovarian

cancer, she undergoes surgery to have the tumors removed. The ovaries,

fallopian tubes, uterus and parts of the bowel are often removed as

well. Chemotherapy follows the surgery, and about 90 percent of

patients then go into remission, a period of "watchful waiting.The

problem is that over the next five to 10 years, as many as 90 percent

of women will relapse and die," says Berek. When the cancer returns in

other surrounding tissue, it is more virulent and resistant to

chemotherapy."

taken from: http://www.azcentral.com/health/women/articles/0618ovarian.html

Of course the "returning" cancer is more deadly than the original

cancer, the person's immune system was destroyed while treating the symptoms

of the first cancer. The cancer may never have left the patient. Once

chemotherapy has damaged the immune system, the patient is left far

more vulnerable to cancer.

An even more deceptive term has entered into the vocabulary of

orthodox medicine. The term is "response." Again, people equate the

term "response" to cure. This newly ubiquitous term is even more

deceptive than the term "remission." What does "response" mean? It only

means that the tumor has shrunk a little. That's all.

Orthodox medicine wants patients to think that the tumor is the

cancer and the size of the tumor equates to the cancer being cured.

This is utter nonsense. It is a clever trick to avoid the issue of

"total life." Rather than extending the total life of patients, they

extend their vocabulary to be more and more deceptive.

Question #2

Question #2: If a cancer patient lives 5 years after diagnosis,

orthodox medicine considers that they are "cured" of cancer. Is this

concept mathematically equivalent to the concept of "total life?"

Answer: It is assumed that the concept of "cure" (meaning

patients who survive 5 years after diagnosis), is equivalent to the

concept of "total life." Consider two car manufacturing companies,

Company B and Company G. Let us define the "total life" of the cars

these companies manufacture to be the number of miles the cars drive

before the engine dies permanently and has to be replaced. Suppose the

"total life" of Company B cars is 100,000 miles and suppose the "total

life" of the Company G cars is 300,000 miles.

Clearly, Company G makes far superior automobiles. How can the

Company B executives make it appear that their car engines are as good

as the engines made by Company G? They can lie with statistics.

For example, what if Company B did a study of what percent of

Company B car engines and what percent of Company G car engines were

still running after 30,000 miles? Both companies would look very good

and you could not tell them apart. But if the study were based on what

percent of Company B car engines and what percent of Company G car

engines were still running after 250,000 miles, the truth about the

inferiority of Company B car engines would be obvious.

If the "benchmark" is carefully chosen to be well below the average, any company will look good.

That is exactly how orthodox medicine lies with statistics. A

"cure rate" based on a patient living 5 years is like the engine test

after 30,000 miles - it is meaningless. The benchmark is way too low.

"Cure rates" should be based on "total life" and nothing else. For

example, some cancers are very slow growing. The "cure rate" for these

cancers is very high, when in fact a 15-year "cure rate" would show

just how poor treatments are for some of these types of cancers.

But the lies of orthodox medicine on this issue go much deeper than that - much deeper.

If you look up the word "cure" in the dictionary, or think about

the concept of curing cancer, you might come up with a definition of

"cure for cancer" as meaning the cancer patient has been returned to

his or her condition before they got cancer. In other words, they have

less than, or fewer, cancer cells than the average person.

Why doesn't orthodox medicine use that definition of "cure?" If

they did use that definition, and every few years they found a true

cure for a type of cancer, their cure rate would slowly go up.

But that is exactly why they don't use that definition of cure.

They have no intention of curing cancer. As Dr. Bob Beck, a PhD in

physics used to say: "a patient cured is a customer lost."

How can orthodox medicine maximize their "profit per cancer

patient?" In other words, they cannot control who gets cancer, but they

can control how much money they make per cancer patient. They can do

that by making cancer into a chronic disease.

In other words, if can they extend the life of the patient, and

keep them on orthodox drugs and orthodox treatments, the orthodox

medical community can make more and more money per patient.

It is easy to tell from their choice of a definition of "cure" that that is exactly what they had in mind all along.

When the orthodox medicine people came up with their "5-year

cure rate" they clearly had in mind that they wanted to convert cancer

into a chronic disease, meaning the patient was going to be on

prescription drugs for the rest of their life. That was clearly their

goal, because as they convert people into chronic patients their "cure

rate" will go up and up ( i.e. more and more of them will hit the 5

year mark, but they will be on drugs for life).

Their definition of "cure" has NOTHING to do with how many

cancer cells a person has, what their health is, how long they will

live after the 5 year mark, how their immune system is doing, how many

microbes they have in their body, etc. etc. It is just a number which

reflects their ability to convert cancer into a chronic disease. The

more they are able to convert cancer into a chronic disease, the higher

their "cure rate," using their tricky definitions.

Orthodox medicine loves to use tricky definitions to make

their treatments look better than they really are, and to hide how

ineffective their treatments are.

The reader should understand the difference between a

"treatment" and a "true cure." A "true cure," meaning the patient is

made whole and no longer needs prescription drugs, stops the profits of

orthodox medicine. But a "treatment" extends and expands on their

profits. Orthodox medicine wants to "treat" cancer, not "cure" cancer.

In fact, orthodox medicine hates it when someone uses the term

"cure" for any disease. They want that term to be illegal because it

distracts the attention of people away from what they want - all

profitable diseases to be chronic diseases.

Question #3

Question #3: The FDA would never approve a chemotherapy drug

unless it was scientifically proven, beyond any doubt, that the drug

significantly extends the "total life" of a cancer patient. True or

false?

Answer: This comment needs some explanation because the goal of

the pharmaceutical industry is to maximize their profits. Think about

it, can you maximize your profits better if your patients live 5 years

or 3 years? Obviously, 5 years. So there is some motivation to extend

the life of cancer patients.

However, think about this also. If you cure the patient after

one year, how much profits do you make after they are cured? Not much.

Thus, the goal of orthodox medicine is to make cancer into a

chronic disease, like diabetes, where the patient has many years of

treatment.

Also, understand that chemotherapy drugs do not

target cancer cells, they target fast-growing cells. There is a

significant difference between targeting fast-growing cells versus

targeting cancer cells.

First, some cancer cells are slow growing, thus chemotherapy

does not target them and may not kill them. Second, some non-cancerous

cells are fast growing, thus chemotherapy may target them and kill

them.

Thus, to target fast growing cells instead of cancer cells is a huge difference.

But more importantly, because chemotherapy drugs do not target

cancer cells chemotherapy drugs cannot stop the spread of cancer. If

enough chemotherapy were given to a cancer patient that the drugs

stopped the spread of the cancer, the patient would die from the

toxicity of the chemotherapy.

Thus, the FDA has NEVER in their history approved a drug that targeted cancer cells and/or stopped the spread of cancer. Ponder that carefully.

However, scores of natural substances have been proven to target

cancer cells, or do no harm to non-cancerous cells, and thus STOP the

spread of cancer and cure the patient. Scores of natural molecules have

been proven to do that!!

The FDA has NEVER approved one of the natural

substances known to target cancer cells, or do no harm to non-cancerous

cells, and thus stop the spread of cancer and cure the patient.

Thus, everything the FDA has approved:

1) Is very profitable to the pharmaceutical industry,

2) Does NOT target cancer cells,

3) Does NOT stop the spread of cancer, and

4) Does NOT cure the patient.

Technically speaking, the drugs may slow down the cancer, and

thus put the patient in remission, but in the vast majority of cases

the patient comes out of remmision and dies of cancer or the cancer

treatment. Thus the drugs approved by the FDA are more and more

profitable to the pharmaceutical industry (because the patient is on

the treatment longer), but they do not stop the spread of cancer or

cure any patients.

Also, the FDA has NEVER approved any of the natural molecules, which:

1) Are not highly profitable to the pharmaceutical industry,

2) DO target cancer cells or do no harm to normal cells,

3) DO stop the spread of cancer, and

4) DO cure the patient of cancer, especially if the patient did not go with orthodox treatments first.

Do you see a pattern here? The deciding factor on what

is approved by the FDA is not based on how long a patient lives, but on

how profitable the drug is to the pharmaceutical industry. So talking about the "total life" of the patient misses the whole point of what is going on in orthdox medicine.

This is the key, if the FDA was interested in maximizing the "total life" of cancer patients they would only

approve natural substances for the treatment of cancer. That is the

key. The FDA is only interested in increasing the "total life" of the

cancer patient if it means more profits to the pharmaceutical industry.

Question: Who do the executives of the FDA care about? Answer: Whoever provides them the most money and other benefits.

To hide what they are really doing, the FDA approves chemotherapy drugs based on the treatment of the symptoms of cancer. The focus on how long a patient lives is not

a focus on targeting cancer cells, or doing no harm to non-cancerous

cells, and thus stopping the spread of cancer and thus curing the

patient. It is only a focus on profits.

But the approval of chemotherapy drugs is generally based on

how well a new drug does treating symptoms (e.g. tumor size or putting

a patient in remission), compared only to how other chemotherapy drugs do treating this same symptom!!

Furthermore, when a chemotherapy drug is approved for "extending life,"

the approval is also based on comparing one chemotherapy drug (or

combination of drugs) to another chemotherapy drug (or combination of

drugs).

Once they got their first chemotherapy drug approved (to treat

symptoms), then all future drugs can be approved by comparing them to

earlier drugs for either "extending life" or treating symptoms.

Never, never, never, has a chemotherapy drug been

approved by a study comparing the use of the drug on one group of

patients, and comparing this group to a group of patients who refused

treatments (in an FDA filing), nor has a study ever been done comparing

chemotherapy to one of the top alternative cancer treatments (in an FDA

filing).

"We have a multi-billion dollar industry that is killing

people, right and left, just for financial gain. Their idea of research

is to see whether two doses of this poison is better than three doses

of that poison."

Dr Glen Warner, M.D. oncologist

Now a person might think that it would be unethical to compare a

chemotherapy drug to those who refuse treatments. If a person were secretly given a placebo, perhaps that would be unethical. However, there are plenty of people who voluntarily

refuse to subject themselves to orthodox treatments who could be used

in a study to compare a chemotherapy treatment plan to those who refuse

treatment!!

To understand what is going on, suppose a new drug allows 75%

of the cancer patients, with a specific type of cancer, to live for 2

years after diagnosis. What exactly does this mean if 85% of those same

cancer patients would have survived two years without any type of

orthodox treatment or 97% of those same cancer patients would have

survived 10 years using the best of the alternative cancer treatments?

Again, the focus of the FDA is on profits, not on "total life,"

though the "total life" may increase in order for the pharmaceutical

industry to make higher profits.

The FDA executives are not innocent bystanders in the murdeous

war between orthodox medicine and alternative medicine. The FDA is 100%

behind the pharmaceutical industry and 0% behind the people of the

United States. They are just as guilty as the pharamceutical

executives, just as guilty as the AMA executives, and just as guilty as

anyone else lying to the American people by telling them prescription

chemotharapy is in the best interests of cancer patients or that

alternative cancer treatments are worthless.

Nor can Congress plead stupidity and hide behind the skirts of

the FDA. The members of Congress will have to individually face the

Great Judge of the Universe and explain why they intentionally stood by

and watched hundreds of thousands of Americans die every year while the

FDA executives (and Congress) were taking bribes from the

pharmaceutical industry.

Question #4

Question #4: Among the thousands of scientific studies on

chemotherapy, there is massive scientific evidence that chemotherapy

extends the "total life" of cancer patients compared to those who

refuse all treatment. True or false?

Answer: The next quote answers this question:

Professor Hardin B. Jones, PhD stated:

"My studies have proved conclusively that untreated cancer victims live up to four times longer

than treated individuals. If one has cancer and opts to do nothing at

all, he will live longer and feel better than if he undergoes

radiation, chemotherapy or surgery ..."

Prof Jones. (1956 Transactions of the N.Y. Academy of Medical Sciences, vol 6)

see also: http://www.sickofdoctors.addr.com/articles/medicalignorance.htm

Now consider this quote:

"In 1975, the respected British medical journal Lancet

reported on a study which compared the effect on cancer patients of (1)

a single chemotherapy, (2) multiple chemotherapy, and (3) no treatment

at all. No treatment 'proved a significantly better policy for

patients' survival and for quality of remaining life.'"

Barry Lynes, The Healing of Cancer - The Cures - the Cover-ups and the Solution Now! - page 9

And this quote:

"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

per cent 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 August 1991) No

mainstream media even mentioned this comprehensive study: it was

totally buried."

Tim O'Shea, The Doctor Within

Three major studies all came to the same conclusion: "orthodox cancer

treatments" do not extend the "total life" of cancer patients. In fact,

in many cases they shorten the "total life" of cancer patients.

Here is a prophetic quote about the future of chemotherapy and radiation:

"Twenty years from now we will look back at chemotherapy and radiation as [being as] barbaric as using leeches,"

Steve Millett, manager of technology forecasts for Battelle

Question #5

Question #5: Orthodox proponents claim that for some kinds of

cancer, "cure rates" have gone up over the past 10 or 20 years. They

claim this is just another proof that orthodox treatments are superior

to alternative treatments. Do you agree?

Answer: Yes, some "cure rates" have gone up. This is the most damaging deception of all.

Suppose Company B makes some small improvements in their engines

and the "total life" of their engines increases from 100,000 miles to

102,000 miles. Because of this, suppose the percentage of their engines

that last 30,000 increases from 92% to 93%.

Now imagine the CEO of Company B makes the following announcement:

"The percentage of our car engines that last 30,000 has increased from 92% to 93%. This proves that Company B cars last longer than Company G cars."

Is the CEO right? Of course not, Company G engines still last

300,000 and Company B engines only last 102,000. It is an absurd claim.

What the Company B executive has done is compare the "old" Company B

cars to the "new" Company B cars. The CEO has not compared the "total

life" of the Company B cars to the "total life" of the Company G cars.

That is exactly what the FDA does. When orthodox medicine says

that "cure rates" have gone up, they are comparing their "old" 5-year

chemotherapy stats to their "new" 5-year chemotherapy stats. They are not

comparing the "total life" of orthodox treatments to the "total life"

of alternative treatments or even the "total life" of those who refuse

treatments.

Orthodox medicine is continually "improving" their treatments,

all with a loud clarion blast of publicity. Their cure rates are always

"going up" and a cure is always "just around the corner." But look at

it this way. Company B can improve their engines to last 102,000, and 5

years later they can improve them to 104,000, and 5 years later to

106,000, and so on. In the mean time people who bought cars from

Company G have cars that last 300,000, then 5 years later 305,000, then

5 years later 310,000, and so on. So when will Company B catch up to

Company G? Never!!

But this sophisticated deception goes much deeper. "Cure rates" will go up if the cancer is diagnosed earlier!

In other words, if the American Cancer Society convinces women to get

mammograms (which are carcinogenic, by the way) more often, their

breast cancer will be diagnosed earlier, on average, and the "cure

rates" for breast cancer will go up! The cure rate did not go up

because of some improvement in chemotherapy or radiation, but because

women have carcinogenic mammograms more frequently!

There are many ways to manipulate the "cure rates" of orthodox

medicine. My free, online eBook goes into this issue in much more

detail.

In truth, the gap in "total life" between alternative cancer treatments and orthodox cancer treatments is greater

than the gap between Company G cars and Company B cars. The

Cameron/Pauling study proved that. While the Cameron/Pauling Vitamin C

therapy in not one of the best current alternative cancer treatments,

there are newer Vitamin C therapies that are among the best treatments.

Orthodox medicine, by using sophisticated definitions and

deceptive statistics, has convinced the public to believe that orthodox

cancer treatments extend the "total life" of patients. But there is no scientific evidence for that belief!!

I want to emphasize that these deceptions were not developed by ignorant people who didn't know what they were doing. They are sophisticated, carefully designed statistical deceptions combined with carefully chosen deceptive terminology!

A normal person would automatically think only about "total life," but

the "total life" numbers are carefully hidden. More will be said about

those doing the deception later in this article.

Let Us Count The Ways

There are some things in the above quotes that may have shocked you.

The concept that people will die more quickly if they have surgery,

chemotherapy and radiation treatments may surprise some people. How is

it possible that people who go through treatments can die quicker than

people who refuse treatments?

In fact, there are many ways that orthodox cancer treatments can kill a cancer patient long before they would have died without treatment of any kind. For example:

Malnutrition: About 40% of cancer patients die of malnutrition before

they would have died of their cancer. Two of the causes of this

malnutrition, which are related to chemotherapy, will now be discussed:

First, chemotherapy makes a person very nauseous and causes them to

throw-up. This causes many people to "... 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." Cachexia is a common cause of death of cancer patients.

Malnutrition: Second, chemotherapy

destroys the lining of the digestive tract of many cancer patients,

making it impossible for the body to absorb the nutrients of the foods

they eat, leading to malnutrition. As one person put it, even if a

cancer patient eats like a king, they can literally die of malnutrition.

Destroys the immune system: Because

chemotherapy and radiation destroy a person's immune system, many

cancer patients die of opportunistic infections, such as sepsis or

pneumonia. As a side note, more than 200,000 Americans a year die of

sepsis. When a cancer patient dies of sepsis it is most likely because

chemotherapy destroyed the patient's immune system, allowing sepsis to

easily kill the patient. It may be counted as a sepsis death, not a

cancer death. This is just one of many ways that the medical community

can hide the true statistics of chemotherapy and radiation.

Destroys the immune system: Because

chemotherapy and radiation kill white blood cells (white blood cells

are the body's natural defense against cancer), chemotherapy and

radiation destroy not only a body's natural defense against the cancer

they currently have, it also destroys the body's defense against new

cancers.

Destroys Red Blood Cells: Because

chemotherapy and radiation kill red blood cells (red blood cells carry

oxygen to the cancer cells and oxygen helps keep cancer from

spreading), cancer cells do not get a normal supply of oxygen. Since

cancer cells are anaerobic, this allows them to thrive and divide

faster.

"So, if a Cancer patient is already Acidic & if Acid

drives out the oxygen causing an anaerobic atmosphere that Cancer

loves, how much sense does it make to take Chemotherapy that will kill

more of your oxygen carrying Red Blood Cells? By a matter of deduction

and the use of common sense once again, wouldn't that create an even

more anaerobic atmosphere and provide an even more desirable situation

for Cancer to wreak havoc?"

http://www.polymvasurvivors.com/what_you_know_4%20Corners%20Protocol.html

Kill a Vital Organ: Chemotherapy and

radiation frequently kill a vital organ of a patient, such as the liver

or heart. Once this happens, without a transplant, nothing, not even

alternative cancer treatments, can save the patient.

Helps Spread the Cancer: Surgical

biopsies can release cancer cells into the blood stream, causing the

possibility that the biopsy will cause the cancer to spread, meaning

metastasize. Some cancer surgeries can also cause cancer cells to get

into the blood stream, especially if the surgery does not "get" all of

the cancer cells.

Chemotherapy is Carcinogenic:

Chemotherapy and radiation can dramatically increase the probability

that a person will get certain types of cancer. For example, many women

treated by chemotherapy and radiation for breast cancer later develop

uterine cancer. Chemotherapy drugs are not only toxic, they are

carcinogenic.

Lose the Will To Live: Many cancer

patients are so devastated by the sickness and nausea orthodox

treatments give them, that they lose the will to live, meaning they

lose the will to keep fighting their cancer.

Now are you surprised that the three major studies mentioned above all

yielded the same conclusion: there is no scientific evidence that

orthodox treatments extend the "total life" of most cancer patients?

The above list is a rather small listing of the side-effects of

orthodox treatments. If you want a more complete picture of how bad

orthodox treatments are watch the videotape "Cancer Doesn't Scare Me

Anymore" by Dr. Lorraine Day, M.D., available at many health food

stores or at:

Dr. Day's website

I should note that alternative treatments for cancer have none

of the above problems. Alternative cancer treatments generally include

dietary items that build a person's immune system, cause no pain,

provide large amounts of natural nutrients, do not spread the cancer,

selectively target and kill cancer cells, cause no damage to normal

cells, and so on.

Judging Orthodox Cancer Treatments

So how can we judge whether orthodox cancer treatments should be used at all?

Everyone knows that surgery, chemotherapy and radiation cause a

patient to become very sick and they do massive damage to the immune

system, they can damage vital organs, etc. How, then, can we justify

the use of these three treatments? I would suggest that we "judge"

orthodox medicine based on three important criteria:

First, the increase in "total life" of the patient by use of the treatment,

Second, the damage done to a patient's immune system, which

causes a severe weakness in the person's ability to fight their current

cancer, plus their ability to fight future cancers, and

Third, the loss of "quality of life" of the patient.

Orthodox medicine fails in all three of these categories!! First, there

is no scientific evidence that in the vast majority of cancers,

orthodox treatments extend the "total life" of patients. Second, the

damage done to a patient's immune system is very severe, plus it even

kills many red blood cells and can damage vital organs. Third, orthodox

treatments not only cause severe trauma to the patient, but they also

cause severe damage and stress to their body.

Suppose I made the statement: "In order to justify the damage

done by orthodox medicine, to both the body and quality of life of a

cancer patient, orthodox medicine must increase the "total life" of the patient by 30%."

Now some people might not like the 30% number, they may pick 20% or

another person might pick 100%. But whatever number you personally

pick, note that there is no scientific evidence that in 97% of the cases, orthodox treatments extend the "total life" of patients one minute. In fact, in most cases orthodox medicine shortens the life of cancer patients!

The 97% number came from cancer expert Ralph Moss, PhD, who could only

identify a few very rare types of cancer for which he thought orthodox

treatments actually extended the "total life" of cancer patients.

"2 to 4% of cancers respond to chemotherapy...The bottom

line is for a few kinds of cancer chemo is a life extending

procedure---Hodgkin's disease, Acute Lymphocytic Leukemia (ALL),

Testicular cancer, and Choriocarcinoma."

Ralph Moss, Ph.D. 1995 Author of: Questioning Chemotherapy

Actually, it is very doubtful Hodgkin's disease patients have their

life extended by more than a few years. In any case, how can we

"justify" the use of orthodox cancer treatments? We cannot in 97% of

the cases. Even for the 3% that are benefited there may be alternative

treatments that are even better than chemotherapy.

What exactly is the significance of the 97% figure Dr. Moss, and many others, have calculated? The significance is that THE "REAL CURE RATE" FOR ORTHODOX CANCER TREATMENTS IS 3%!!

In other words, whenever you see an overall cure rate for orthodox medicine higher than 3%, it is a number generated purely by deceptive statistical tricks!!

Compare the 3% REAL cure rate of orthodox medicine to the REAL cure

rate of 93% of Dr. Kelley, for those patients who went to him FIRST (meaning they did not go to orthodox medicine before they went to him).

Then ask yourself why the FDA approves one chemotherapy drug after another and yet ignores alternative cancer treatments. IS GOD A QUACK? No, but modern "scientists" are quacks and the FDA will only listen to modern "scientist" quacks.

Also, ask yourself why every year more people die of cancer than died

in the prior year. Ask yourself if all of these "breakthroughs" in

chemotherapy drugs you hear about every week actually change that 3%

figure (answer: they never do, they are comparing one worthless drug to

a newer, more profitable worthless drug and they are only talking about

symptoms or temporary regression).

Now ask yourself if the REAL 3% cure rate justifies the massive

pain and suffering of orthodox cancer patients and whether it justifies

the massive damage done to their organs, immune system, red blood

cells, etc.

Here are images of an accidental chemotherapy spill on a

person's hand. Keep in mind that this is the stuff they put in a