War on Cancer

May 23, 2008

Tony,

Im taking your article from Natural News, on losing the war on cancer, to my oncologist tomorrow. I want to get her take on it. I want to hear her response to it. I want to see with my own eyes how these doctors THINK about the grim situation. How they deny it or ignore it. I suspect she won't surprise me, but I just need to understand what the hell they say to themselves that enables them to continue in this job they've selected!

One thing though, I need to find out from you where this percentage comes from, that you quoted. It is soooooo dramatically different than all the statistics I've read that I've got to know how it was derived before I go in there with a mission... I mean, I don't want my oncologist to turn it around and accuse US of "misrepresenting" or "altering" statistics to suit our agenda!

Would you please tell me where this percentage originates?

"Although surgery does have some success against a limited number of cancers, chemo and radiation achieve at best a 3% increase in length of survival and true cures from cancer (meaning that the patient becomes completely cancer free and the cancer never returns). The fact is that for those who are diagnosed with cancer, after the third year the survival rate for those who had no treatment at all increases steadily and for those who had mainstream treatment it decreases steadily.(1)Despite the dismal record, those in the $300 Billion a year cancer industry appear determined to maintain a stranglehold on treatment. One way they do so is to suppress natural alternatives. Another is to misreport their success rates by altering statistics to make their success appear to be much better than it actually is."

Thanks,

Angel

May 23, 2008

Here's an article I wrote on Fraud in Medicine entitled: Chemotherapy. I've quoted Moss's work (used to point to his books till Barnes & Nobel changed their affiliate program and destroyed my web site).

http://www.mnwelldir.org/docs/fraud/chemo.htm

I hope you'll enjoy it.

David

In a message dated 5/23/2008 10:10:22 A.M. Central Daylight Time, writes:

I believe that I got that from Dr. Ralph Moss, as noted in my article. Moss is recognized as an authority on mainstream and alternative cancer therapies worldwide. Here is what he has to say in the introduction to his excellent and highly recommended book "Questioning Chemotherapy":Get trade secrets for amazing burgers. Watch "Cooking with Tyler Florence" on AOL Food.

May 23, 2008

Radiation treatment spurs the spread of cancer

Knowledge of Health –

Bill Sardis

Researchers in Belgium concede that radiation therapy for

cancer, under some circumstances, stimulate the spread of cancer (metastasis)

by producing growth factors. They say " it is not surprising that radiation

therapy of the primary tumor influences metastasis. Indeed, experiments with

cells in culture and with animal tumors have shown that IR stimulates invasion

and metastasis and activates pro-invasive and prometastatic cellular activities

through upregulation of key molecules. " [bulletin du Cancer March 1; 95:

292-300, 2008]

Loretta Lanphier, ND, CN, HHP, CH

www.oawhealth.com

Sign-up for our FREE Advanced Health & Wellness Newsletter

May 23, 2008

I believe that I got that from Dr. Ralph Moss, as noted in my article. Moss is recognized as an authority on mainstream and alternative cancer therapies worldwide. Here is what he has to say in the introduction to his excellent and highly recommended book "Questioning Chemotherapy":Hi! I'm Ralph Moss, author of Questioning Chemotherapy. I want to tell you how and why I came to write this book.I started as a believer in chemotherapy. As a science writer at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York, I wrote articles praising the latest advances in chemotherapy. I was impressed by the then-emerging cures for Hodgkin's disease, acute lymphocytic leukemia and some other relatively rare cancers. At the same time, I began to learn how skeptical many good scientists were about chemotherapy's future. The major objection to "chemo" was that these drugs did not discriminate between normal and cancerous cells, but attacked all rapidly dividing cells . One scientist described this method as "trying to melt a patient's left ear , while leaving the right one alone." It seemed particularly inappropriate in the treatment of solid tumors of adults, which are often slow-growing. Because chemotherapy drugs were general cellular poisons, they could be terribly toxic. They were also very expensive for patients and for society as a whole. When I learned about the links between the pharmaceutical industry and the cancer establishment (later detailed in my book, The Cancer Industry) I understood the commercial reason that such an inadequate modality was so heavily promoted. In 1989, a German biostatistician named Ulrich Abel, Ph.D. published a groundbreaking monograph called "Chemotherapy of Advanced Epithelial Cancer. It made few waves in the U.S. and soon went out of print. In this excellent work, however, Dr. Abel rigorously demonstrated that chemotherapy had never been scientifically proven to extend life through randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in the vast majority of "epithelial cancers." These are the common types of carcinoma that affect most cancer patients in the Western world. Some years later, in response to many requests, I decided to write a critical book about chemotherapy (a sort of companion piece to Cancer Therapy). I took Abel's out-of-print work as my starting point, but also consulted the work of many other students of chemotherapy. In this book, I update statistics and speak about all cancers and not just carcinomas. I go into depth on the politics and economics of the chemotherapy industry, on the biases, fallacies and frauds that occur, and on ways of warding off the sometimes catastrophic side effects that accompany this treatment. The essential point of the book is that one must question the measure of success in chemotherapy. Oncologists have tended to equate an increasing percentage of "responses" with progress. However, responses are generally measurements of tumor shrinkage, for as little as one month's duration. One cannot automatically assume that a response--even a complete response--will lead to increased survival. One must look for increased survival. Yet the number of cancers for which life prolongation through chemotherapy has been proven through randomized clinical trials is very small. (I do bend over backwards to point these out, when they occur.) So when a doctor says her regimen yields a 40 percent response rate, "what exactly is she promising? A short-term shrinkage of tumors--or actual life-prolongation? What effect is this treatment likely to have on the patient's quality of life? And what is the cost?" It is only by obtaining information such as this that patients are able to make rational treatment choices. Questioning Chemotherapy is intended to help patients by providing them with a critical perspective on this now dominant modality. Here is another thing to consider asking your oncologist about:In 2002, the Journal of the American Medical Association reported that in the previous year, the average oncologist had made $253,000 of which 75% was profit on chemotherapy drugs administered in his/her office. Yet, surveys of oncologists by the Los Angeles Times and the McGill Cancer Center in Montreal show that from 75% to 91% of ongologists would refuse chemotherapy as a treatment for themselves or their families. Why? Too toxic and not effective. Yet, 75% of cancer patients are urged to take chemo by their oncologists. Returning to Moss's book - I firmly believe that any one considering chemo should first read this book. It is probably the finest book on the subject available anywhere.For a more in-depth look at Dr. Moss's take on cancer, please see: Questioning Chemotherapy: A Personal Statementby Ralph W. Moss, Ph.D.http://www.ralphmoss.com/qcpers.html Tony--- In oleander soup , <toreadpeoplehealthinfo wrote:>> Tony,> > Im taking your article from Natural News, on losing the war on cancer, to my oncologist tomorrow. I want to get her take on it. I want to hear her response to it. I want to see with my own eyes how these doctors THINK about the grim situation. How they deny it or ignore it. I suspect she won't surprise me, but I just need to understand what the hell they say to themselves that enables them to continue in this job they've selected!> > One thing though, I need to find out from you where this percentage comes from, that you quoted. It is soooooo dramatically different than all the statistics I've read that I've got to know how it was derived before I go in there with a mission... I mean, I don't want my oncologist to turn it around and accuse US of "misrepresenting" or "altering" statistics to suit our agenda!> > Would you please tell me where this percentage originates?> > "Although surgery does have some success against a limited number of cancers, chemo and radiation achieve at best a 3% increase in length of survival and true cures from cancer (meaning that the patient becomes completely cancer free and the cancer never returns). The fact is that for those who are diagnosed with cancer, after the third year the survival rate for those who had no treatment at all increases steadily and for those who had mainstream treatment it decreases steadily.(1)> > Despite the dismal record, those in the $300 Billion a year cancer industry appear determined to maintain a stranglehold on treatment. One way they do so is to suppress natural alternatives. Another is to misreport their success rates by altering statistics to make their success appear to be much better than it actually is."> > Thanks,> Angel>oleander soup , <toreadpeoplehealthinfo wrote:>> Tony,> > Im taking your article from Natural News, on losing the war on cancer, to my oncologist tomorrow. I want to get her take on it. I want to hear her response to it. I want to see with my own eyes how these doctors THINK about the grim situation. How they deny it or ignore it. I suspect she won't surprise me, but I just need to understand what the hell they say to themselves that enables them to continue in this job they've selected!> > One thing though, I need to find out from you where this percentage comes from, that you quoted. It is soooooo dramatically different than all the statistics I've read that I've got to know how it was derived before I go in there with a mission... I mean, I don't want my oncologist to turn it around and accuse US of "misrepresenting" or "altering" statistics to suit our agenda!> > Would you please tell me where this percentage originates?> > "Although surgery does have some success against a limited number of cancers, chemo and radiation achieve at best a 3% increase in length of survival and true cures from cancer (meaning that the patient becomes completely cancer free and the cancer never returns). The fact is that for those who are diagnosed with cancer, after the third year the survival rate for those who had no treatment at all increases steadily and for those who had mainstream treatment it decreases steadily.(1)> > Despite the dismal record, those in the $300 Billion a year cancer industry appear determined to maintain a stranglehold on treatment. One way they do so is to suppress natural alternatives. Another is to misreport their success rates by altering statistics to make their success appear to be much better than it actually is."> > Thanks,> Angel>

May 24, 2008

Thanks Tony,

I had to reschedule my appointment with the onc today. No biggie, had time to stop by the bookstore and pick up Moss's Chemo book you reference below. I'm going to read it this weekend and see if I can find that statistic and get ready for my new appointment next week.

His story is inspiring and his data is impressive, I'll dig in this weekend.

Thank you Tony.

You know - I'm an amateur natural health practitioner. I mean, 8 years ago when my dog got cancer and my regular vet wanted to put him to sleep, I refused to believe that this wasn't "fixable" and by sheer stubbornness I found a vet who agreed. I didn't purposely seek out an alternative health vet but that's where I landed and I did everything he commanded I do to save my dog, and it worked, but I drove him completely nuts with my questions and "why this" and "why that". The vet, not my dog - I mean I drove my vet nuts, not my dog ;-) My dog got cured and lived another 7 years until the age of 18 which is far beyond average age for a German Shepherd mix. And along the way, she taught me that what was good for the gander was good for the goose too, or vice-versa or however it goes.... and I completely changed my lifestyle and my diet as well along the way.

So, I began my journey into natural health - the horrors, the disbelief over current state of affairs, the hopelessness for anything changing, and it was all so addictive somehow. There's just an endless and overwhelming amount of information to learn, misinformation to weed out, contradictions to sort out, experts up the wazoo on both sides of the fence to pin down. But for a lay person doing this just for personal use and not as a profession, unable to devote full days, all days to this topic, it always just felt like I was just scratching the surface. But I kept learning, and investigating, and asking questions and building my natural pharmacy and my library none-the-less because the little I knew made it impossible to go back to "not-knowing" again or to stop needing to know more.

And then I got diagnosed with cancer myself and realized that all I've been doing these past 8 years was in abstract, somehow just in theory so to speak since I've been extraordinarily lucky with my health all my life and never had any serious disease in my family to manage or need to/want to learn about specifically. My dog's cancer was the most dramatic health crisis our entire family has EVER had to-date.

When the doctor said I only have a 15% chance of being here in one year, and 35% if I do chemo - I finally succumbed, because at initial scan of recommended natural cancer treatments, nobody could offer substantive statistics even close to this. AND none of the alternative doctors I found seemed TRULY knowledgable about ALL the modalities I would have wanted to explore. AND the clinics that did offer what I wanted to try were so completely out of my affordability realm, that it was ridiculous to even contemplate.

And I succumbed because I simply couldn't find intelligent and solid enough arguments to counter my family's hysterical response to me refusing chemo.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is this - I don't believe it's possible to know how one will react when facing a fast approaching expiration date. I would have guessed that I surely would never do chemo. And I'm definitely a dilletant in natural health but I believe the average person is still probably only aware of about 5% of the knowledge I have - and STILL, I gave in to chemo. I completely understand why the chemo industry is booming - it's the only game in town that offers any kind of "confidence" in their protocol and forms a "team" to "take care" of you and won't drive your entire family into poverty while treating you, if you are lucky enough to have insurance.

I don't know what the hell I'm arguing here in this email, except re-confirming, as I do every single day, that I'm not totally sure what the BEST thing to do is....but simply don't have enough confidence to use natural remedies ALONE. So, I'm doing both - not quite everything the oncologist insisted I do - because of level of toxicity and permanent damage - and not quite everything natural I would like to do - because of cost, but it's the best I can do right now and I just hope that these two worlds don't cancel each other out completely.

Going to read the book now...maybe it will help me feel more confident....

Angel

Re: War on Cancer

Posted by: "Tony"

Fri May 23, 2008 8:09 am (PDT)

I believe that I got that from Dr. Ralph Moss, as noted in my article. Moss is recognized as an authority on mainstream and alternative cancertherapies worldwide. Here is what he has to say in the introduction tohis excellent and highly recommended book "Questioning Chemotherapy":Hi! I'm Ralph Moss, author of Questioning Chemotherapy. I want to tellyou how and why I came to write this book.I started as a believer in chemotherapy. As a science writer at MemorialSloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York, I wrote articles praising thelatest advances in chemotherapy. I was impressed by the then-emergingcures for Hodgkin's disease, acute lymphocytic leukemia and some otherrelatively rare cancers. At the same time, I began to learn howskeptical many good scientists were about chemotherapy's future.The major objection to "chemo" was that these drugs did not discriminatebetween normal and cancerous cells, but attacked all rapidly dividingcells . One scientist described this method as "trying to melt apatient's left ear , while leaving the right one alone." It seemedparticularly inappropriate in the treatment of solid tumors of adults,which are often slow-growing.Because chemotherapy drugs were general cellular poisons, they could beterribly toxic. They were also very expensive for patients and forsociety as a whole. When I learned about the links between thepharmaceutical industry and the cancer establishment (later detailed inmy book, The Cancer Industry) I understood the commercial reason thatsuch an inadequate modality was so heavily promoted.In 1989, a German biostatistician named Ulrich Abel, Ph.D. published agroundbreaking monograph called "Chemotherapy of Advanced EpithelialCancer. It made few waves in the U.S. and soon went out of print. Inthis excellent work, however, Dr. Abel rigorously demonstrated thatchemotherapy had never been scientifically proven to extend life throughrandomized clinical trials (RCTs) in the vast majority of "epithelialcancers." These are the common types of carcinoma that affect mostcancer patients in the Western world.Some years later, in response to many requests, I decided to write acritical book about chemotherapy (a sort of companion piece to CancerTherapy). I took Abel's out-of-print work as my starting point, but alsoconsulted the work of many other students of chemotherapy. In this book,I update statistics and speak about all cancers and not just carcinomas.I go into depth on the politics and economics of the chemotherapyindustry, on the biases, fallacies and frauds that occur, and on ways ofwarding off the sometimes catastrophic side effects that accompany thistreatment.The essential point of the book is that one must question the measure ofsuccess in chemotherapy. Oncologists have tended to equate an increasingpercentage of "responses" with progress. However, responses aregenerally measurements of tumor shrinkage, for as little as one month'sduration. One cannot automatically assume that a response--even acomplete response--will lead to increased survival. One must look forincreased survival. Yet the number of cancers for which lifeprolongation through chemotherapy has been proven through randomizedclinical trials is very small. (I do bend over backwards to point theseout, when they occur.)So when a doctor says her regimen yields a 40 percent response rate,"what exactly is she promising? A short-term shrinkage of tumors--oractual life-prolongation? What effect is this treatment likely to haveon the patient's quality of life? And what is the cost?" It is only byobtaining information such as this that patients are able to makerational treatment choices. Questioning Chemotherapy is intended to helppatients by providing them with a critical perspective on this nowdominant modality.Here is another thing to consider asking your oncologist about:In 2002, the Journal of the American Medical Association reported thatin the previous year, the average oncologist had made $253,000 of which75% was profit on chemotherapy drugs administered in his/her office.Yet, surveys of oncologists by the Los Angeles Times and the McGillCancer Center in Montreal show that from 75% to 91% of ongologistswould refuse chemotherapy as a treatment for themselves or theirfamilies. Why? Too toxic and not effective. Yet, 75% of cancer patientsare urged to take chemo by their oncologists.Returning to Moss's book - I firmly believe that any one consideringchemo should first read this book. It is probably the finest book onthe subject available anywhere.For a more in-depth look at Dr. Moss's take on cancer, please see:Questioning Chemotherapy:A Personal Statementby Ralph W. Moss, Ph.D.http://www.ralphmoss.com/qcpers.html<http://www.ralphmoss.com/qcpers.html>Tony

May 24, 2008

You are quite welcome, Angel - and thank YOU for such a wonderful post

that helps put in perspective the delimna so many of us face when

confronted by serious illness. Mainstream medicine and treatments

have been set up to be the only game in town, and since there is so

much suppression of natural competition and so little money for

studies of natural and alternative treatments, it is hard for us to

simply take them at faith.

I am confidant, however, that my suggested protocol is well over 90%

effective for cancers across the board and, rather than giving a 35%

chance at an extra year, or more likely an extra few months at best,

it gives a very great chance at eliminating the cancer once and for

all, preventing it from ever returning and giving a person a great

many healthy years of life - perhaps more years than they would have

had even if they had never developed cancer.

Another book I recommend is the very readable and simple book of Tanya

Harter Pierce " Outsmarting Your Cancer " . There are a number of links

to it on my website tbyil.com. Ms. Pierce and I have talked and

emailed several times and she indicated that she plans to include a

chapter on oleander in her next edition.

I would love to be a fly on the wall when you visit your oncologist!

Live long, live healthy, live happy!

oleander soup , <toreadpeoplehealthinfo wrote:

>

> Thanks Tony,

>

> I had to reschedule my appointment with the onc today. No biggie,

had time to stop by the bookstore and pick up Moss's Chemo book you

reference below. I'm going to read it this weekend and see if I can

find that statistic and get ready for my new appointment next week.

>

> His story is inspiring and his data is impressive, I'll dig in this

weekend.

>

> Thank you Tony.

>

> You know - I'm an amateur natural health practitioner. I mean, 8

years ago when my dog got cancer and my regular vet wanted to put him

to sleep, I refused to believe that this wasn't " fixable " and by sheer

stubbornness I found a vet who agreed. I didn't purposely seek out an

alternative health vet but that's where I landed and I did everything

he commanded I do to save my dog, and it worked, but I drove him

completely nuts with my questions and " why this " and " why that " . The

vet, not my dog - I mean I drove my vet nuts, not my dog ;-) My dog

got cured and lived another 7 years until the age of 18 which is far

beyond average age for a German Shepherd mix. And along the way, she

taught me that what was good for the gander was good for the goose

too, or vice-versa or however it goes.... and I completely changed my

lifestyle and my diet as well along the way.

>

> So, I began my journey into natural health - the horrors, the

disbelief over current state of affairs, the hopelessness for anything

changing, and it was all so addictive somehow. There's just an

endless and overwhelming amount of information to learn,

misinformation to weed out, contradictions to sort out, experts up the

wazoo on both sides of the fence to pin down. But for a lay person

doing this just for personal use and not as a profession, unable to

devote full days, all days to this topic, it always just felt like I

was just scratching the surface. But I kept learning, and

investigating, and asking questions and building my natural pharmacy

and my library none-the-less because the little I knew made it

impossible to go back to " not-knowing " again or to stop needing to

know more.

>

> And then I got diagnosed with cancer myself and realized that all

I've been doing these past 8 years was in abstract, somehow just in

theory so to speak since I've been extraordinarily lucky with my

health all my life and never had any serious disease in my family to

manage or need to/want to learn about specifically. My dog's cancer

was the most dramatic health crisis our entire family has EVER had

to-date.

>

> When the doctor said I only have a 15% chance of being here in one

year, and 35% if I do chemo - I finally succumbed, because at initial

scan of recommended natural cancer treatments, nobody could offer

substantive statistics even close to this. AND none of the alternative

doctors I found seemed TRULY knowledgable about ALL the modalities I

would have wanted to explore. AND the clinics that did offer what I

wanted to try were so completely out of my affordability realm, that

it was ridiculous to even contemplate.

>

> And I succumbed because I simply couldn't find intelligent and solid

enough arguments to counter my family's hysterical response to me

refusing chemo.

>

> I guess the point I'm trying to make is this - I don't believe it's

possible to know how one will react when facing a fast approaching

expiration date. I would have guessed that I surely would never do

chemo. And I'm definitely a dilletant in natural health but I believe

the average person is still probably only aware of about 5% of the

knowledge I have - and STILL, I gave in to chemo. I completely

understand why the chemo industry is booming - it's the only game in

town that offers any kind of " confidence " in their protocol and forms

a " team " to " take care " of you and won't drive your entire family

into poverty while treating you, if you are lucky enough to have

insurance.

>

> I don't know what the hell I'm arguing here in this email, except

re-confirming, as I do every single day, that I'm not totally sure

what the BEST thing to do is....but simply don't have enough

confidence to use natural remedies ALONE. So, I'm doing both - not

quite everything the oncologist insisted I do - because of level of

toxicity and permanent damage - and not quite everything natural I

would like to do - because of cost, but it's the best I can do right

now and I just hope that these two worlds don't cancel each other out

completely.

>

> Going to read the book now...maybe it will help me feel more

confident....

>

> Angel

>

> Re: War on Cancer

> Posted by: " Tony "

> Fri May 23, 2008 8:09 am (PDT)

> I believe that I got that from Dr. Ralph Moss, as noted in my article.

> Moss is recognized as an authority on mainstream and alternative cancer

> therapies worldwide. Here is what he has to say in the introduction to

> his excellent and highly recommended book " Questioning Chemotherapy " :

>

> Hi! I'm Ralph Moss, author of Questioning Chemotherapy. I want to tell

> you how and why I came to write this book.

>

> I started as a believer in chemotherapy. As a science writer at Memorial

> Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York, I wrote articles praising the

> latest advances in chemotherapy. I was impressed by the then-emerging

> cures for Hodgkin's disease, acute lymphocytic leukemia and some other

> relatively rare cancers. At the same time, I began to learn how

> skeptical many good scientists were about chemotherapy's future.

>

> The major objection to " chemo " was that these drugs did not discriminate

> between normal and cancerous cells, but attacked all rapidly dividing

> cells . One scientist described this method as " trying to melt a

> patient's left ear , while leaving the right one alone. " It seemed

> particularly inappropriate in the treatment of solid tumors of adults,

> which are often slow-growing.

>

> Because chemotherapy drugs were general cellular poisons, they could be

> terribly toxic. They were also very expensive for patients and for

> society as a whole. When I learned about the links between the

> pharmaceutical industry and the cancer establishment (later detailed in

> my book, The Cancer Industry) I understood the commercial reason that

> such an inadequate modality was so heavily promoted.

>

> In 1989, a German biostatistician named Ulrich Abel, Ph.D. published a

> groundbreaking monograph called " Chemotherapy of Advanced Epithelial

> Cancer. It made few waves in the U.S. and soon went out of print. In

> this excellent work, however, Dr. Abel rigorously demonstrated that

> chemotherapy had never been scientifically proven to extend life through

> randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in the vast majority of " epithelial

> cancers. " These are the common types of carcinoma that affect most

> cancer patients in the Western world.

>

> Some years later, in response to many requests, I decided to write a

> critical book about chemotherapy (a sort of companion piece to Cancer

> Therapy). I took Abel's out-of-print work as my starting point, but also

> consulted the work of many other students of chemotherapy. In this book,

> I update statistics and speak about all cancers and not just carcinomas.

> I go into depth on the politics and economics of the chemotherapy

> industry, on the biases, fallacies and frauds that occur, and on ways of

> warding off the sometimes catastrophic side effects that accompany this

> treatment.

>

> The essential point of the book is that one must question the measure of

> success in chemotherapy. Oncologists have tended to equate an increasing

> percentage of " responses " with progress. However, responses are

> generally measurements of tumor shrinkage, for as little as one month's

> duration. One cannot automatically assume that a response--even a

> complete response--will lead to increased survival. One must look for

> increased survival. Yet the number of cancers for which life

> prolongation through chemotherapy has been proven through randomized

> clinical trials is very small. (I do bend over backwards to point these

> out, when they occur.)

>

> So when a doctor says her regimen yields a 40 percent response rate,

> " what exactly is she promising? A short-term shrinkage of tumors--or

> actual life-prolongation? What effect is this treatment likely to have

> on the patient's quality of life? And what is the cost? " It is only by

> obtaining information such as this that patients are able to make

> rational treatment choices. Questioning Chemotherapy is intended to help

> patients by providing them with a critical perspective on this now

> dominant modality.

>

> Here is another thing to consider asking your oncologist about:

>

> In 2002, the Journal of the American Medical Association reported that

> in the previous year, the average oncologist had made $253,000 of which

> 75% was profit on chemotherapy drugs administered in his/her office.

> Yet, surveys of oncologists by the Los Angeles Times and the McGill

> Cancer Center in Montreal show that from 75% to 91% of ongologists

> would refuse chemotherapy as a treatment for themselves or their

> families. Why? Too toxic and not effective. Yet, 75% of cancer patients

> are urged to take chemo by their oncologists.

>

> Returning to Moss's book - I firmly believe that any one considering

> chemo should first read this book. It is probably the finest book on

> the subject available anywhere.

>

> For a more in-depth look at Dr. Moss's take on cancer, please see:

>

> Questioning Chemotherapy:

>

> A Personal Statement

> by Ralph W. Moss, Ph.D.

>

> http://www.ralphmoss.com/qcpers.html

> <http://www.ralphmoss.com/qcpers.html>

>

> >

May 25, 2008

Angel,

Don't give up on your knowledge, only you really know what's right for you. Just like you knew what was right for your doggie.You are your own physician, remember that always. Nature was here long before BIG Pharma.

I'm treating my cancer without Big Pharma and wouldn't have it any other way. Quality of life is so important. Having control of your own health is everything. Mainstream docs will never give you that.

Tammatha

-

toreadpeoplehealthinfo

oleander soup

Saturday, May 24, 2008 4:29 AM