Suffering And Death By Chemotherapy...What Ralph Moss Says.....

[Guest guest]

I pay particular attention to Ralph Moss because he was an " insider "

at Sloan-Kettering Cancer Treatment Center, (which I call " Clone

Slaughtering, " by the way), who " defected " because he could see that

mainstream cancer treatment was a 99% cruel, expensive nonsense.

 

Here is what Ralph Moss says about treating cancer with

chemo " therapy " :

 

The Man Who Questions Chemotherapy : Dr. Ralph Moss

 

" Dr. Ralph Moss has written the book, Questioning Chemotherapy, which

documents the ineffectiveness of chemotherapy in treating most

cancers. On November 19, 1977, he was fired for telling the public

the truth. At a press conference on November 18th, he and the Second

Opinion working group released a well-documented 48-page report that

stated the top officials of the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer

Center had lied about the results of a study performed at the center

regarding " Laetrile " -- (a natural, alternative cancer treatment).

 

Dr. Moss has gained credibility by writing eight books, including his

most recent work, Cancer Therapy: The Independent Consumer's Guide to

Non-Toxic Treatment. He also wrote The Cancer Industry, a documented

research work telling of the enormous financial and political

corruption in the " cancer establishment " . He indicates that the

motivating forces in cancer research and treatment are often power

and money, and not the cure of cancer patients. He also writes, The

Cancer Chronicles, a newsletter reporting on new cancer treatments

and preventive measures.

 

Dr. Moss' work documents the ineffectiveness of chemotherapy on most

forms of cancer. However, he is fair in pointing out that there are

the following exceptions: Acute Iymphocytic leukemia, Hodgkin's

disease, and nonseminomatous testicular cancer. Also, a few very rare

forms of cancer, including choriocarcinoma, Wilm's tumor, and

retinoblastoma. But all of these account for only 2% to 4% of all

cancers occurring in the United States. This leaves some 96% to 98%

of other cancers, in which chemotherapy doesn't eliminate the

disease. The vast majority of cancers, such as breast, colon, and

lung cancer are barely touched by chemotherapy. However, there is

another category where chemotherapy has a relatively minor effect --

The most " successful " of these is in Stage 3 ovarian cancer, where

chemotherapy appears to extend life by perhaps eighteen months, and

small-cell lung cancer in which chemotherapy might offer six more

months.

 

Effective cancer treatment is a matter of definition. The FDA defines

an " effective " drug as one which achieves a 50% or more reduction in

tumor size for 28 days. In the vast majority of cases there is

absolutely no correlation between shrinking tumors for 28 days and

the cure of the cancer or extension of life.

 

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.

 

We are obviously losing ground with conventional cancer treatment,

because the death rates keep going up. The reason for this is because

conventional treatment is based on a faulty standard: That the body

must be purged of cancer by aggressive and toxic methods such as

surgery chemotherapy and radiation therapy. This, of course, seemed

reasonable back in 1894 when William Halsted, M.D. did the first

radical mastectomy, but it has proven to be so wrong over the last 50

years that continuing to adhere to it constitutes more fraud than

honest mistake. However, this standard still dominates conventional

cancer therapy, and until that changes, we will continue to lose

ground with cancer.

 

Dr. Whitaker, a firm believer in Dr. Moss' work and alternative

cancer therapy goes on to give some of his personal views:

 

Statistics Don't Tell the Real Story

 

What is lost in the unemotional statistic of 500,000 cancer deaths

per year is how those people died. Dr. Whitaker goes on to say more

about the treatment of cancer: In my opinion, conventional cancer

therapy is so toxic and dehumanizing that I fear it far more than I

fear death from cancer. We know that conventional therapy doesn't

work -- if it did, you would not fear cancer any more than you fear

pneumonia. It is the utter lack of certainty as to the outcome of

conventional treatment that virtually screams for more freedom of

choice in the area of cancer therapy. Yet most so-called alternative

therapies regardless of potential or proven benefit, are outlawed,

which forces patients to submit to the failures that we know don't

work, because there's no other choice.

 

Personal Belief Systems Determine the Choices You Make

 

Because cancer treatment is such a sensitive issue, I need to set

some ground rules before I tell you what I would do if I had cancer.

What follows is what I personally would do. It is not a

recommendation for you, and should not be considered as such. It is

not even what my wife would do(that would be her decision), nor is it

what my young son would do (that would be the joint decision of my

wife and myself). The choices to be made in treating cancer are not

easy ones, because there is so little certainty of cure in any of

them. The course that someone chooses to take is very personal, and

reflects not only that person's knowledge of the options, but also

his/her beliefs.

 

Yet, because we are strongly influenced by our natural fear of death,

we lineup for conventional cancer therapy, not so much believing that

it will work, but hoping that it will not fail. If expensive,

debilitating procedures to eliminate acne scars had the same failure

rate as cancer treatment, they would be abandoned. It is only because

cancer is so often fatal that conventional approaches were not

abandoned long ago. We continue to use them not because they work,

but because those who perform them have so vigorously eliminated any

other choice.

 

My Imaginary Cancer Scenario

 

(by Dr. Whitaker)

 

Though I would approach my own dilemma with hopes of total cure, I

would be the first to admit that, regardless of the course I took,

the chances of that are small. Consequently, my choices of cancer

therapy are a mix of science and philosophy. They are as much a

reflection of how I would struggle for survival as of how I would

wish to die if the struggle failed. For the purposes of this

discussion, let us assume that I have just been diagnosed with cancer

of the lung, and a particularly virulent one. (Please understand that

I do not have cancer, nor do I smoke.) Before going into what I would

do and why, let me say what I wouldn't do, and why.

 

I Wouldn't Take A Passive Role

 

If I am going to fight for my life, I want to do just that. I am

always perplexed by the news stories of some celebrity, doped to the

gills with heinous poison, " courageously battling for his life. " What

does this mean? The celebrity, who simply accepts conventional cancer

therapy, is no more " courageous " than a laboratory mouse. This is not

to say that what the celebrity is doing is wrong, only that it is the

very opposite of a willful act of courage.

 

Taking a passive role with today's conventional therapy is terribly

dangerous. Recently Jackie Kennedy, after a " courageous fight, "

succumbed to non-Hodgkin's lymphoma - or did she? Her early demise,

attributed to the cancer, was a shock to cancer specialists

worldwide, and brought into question the real cause of her death. She

had been given an unproved protocol of very high-dose chemotherapy.

The drugs alone could easily have caused her death - and this would

not be unusual. There are numerous cases of iatrogenic (doctor-

induced) deaths from chemotherapy.

 

I'd Actively Fight For My Life

 

On the other hand, the cancer patient who says, " no, thanks " to

chemotherapy recommended by large cancer treatment centers, and takes

off to Grand Bahamas Island to receive Immuno-Augmentative Therapy

(IAT); or to Houston, Texas, to receive antineoplastons from Dr.

Stanislaw Burzynski; or who heads to the public library to make a

battle plan, has begun fighting and is acting courageously.

 

Whether I win or lose, that is the course I would take. What have I

got to lose? Conventional treatment is toxic and simply doesn't work,

so I would throw my lot with something safe that might work, and

folks, a lot of approaches fit that description. I also believe

patients who seek alternative therapies are more optimistic. They

have only one worry - the cancer- not the cancer and the therapy!

 

And Now. Here's What I Would Do

 

(by Dr. Whitaker)

 

I'd turn my back on 50 years of institutionalized expertise, because

it follows the wrong paradigm. Everything that is done in medicine or

in any other discipline fits some paradigm. The paradigm I use for

cancer is that it is a systemic problem in which the normal control

mechanisms of your body are altered. Your immune system likely bears

the largest burden for this control; thus, all techniques that

enhance it are promising. Those that damage it are not.

 

Also, cancer cells are different from normal cells in many ways,

including their metabolic profile. At least one non-toxic therapy,

hydrazine sulfate, takes advantage of this difference. It has been

shown in double-blind trials published in respectable journals to

significantly reduce the severe weight loss (cachexia) of advanced

cancer, and markedly improve the patient's emotional state, almost to

the point of euphoria. It is also inexpensive. Even though hydrazine

sulfate has been shown to be effective and non-toxic, and it makes

the patient feel better, it is ignored by every major cancer center.

Yet I would take it immediately. (For more on hydrazine sulfate, see

Ralph Moss' book, The Cancer Industry.)

 

First, I would Change My Diet

 

I would switch to a mostly vegetarian diet. I'd also take the

Nutritional Supplements " Green foods, " such as GREENS+ (800/643-1210)

or Green Magma (from Healthy Directions; 800/722-8008, ext. 572).

These supplements include the phyto-chemicals, antioxidants,

vitamins, and minerals required for optimal health.. I would enhance

that basic program with the following:

 

Vitamin C - 10,000 mg per day in divided doses. Ewan Cameron, a

Scottish physician, did a study in which 100 cancer patients were

given 10,000 mg of vitamin C for the rest of their lives, while

control patients were not. The patients on vitamin C lived much

longer than the age-matched controls. The Mayo Clinic did two studies

on vitamin C, and in both studies found that vitamin C did not help.

However, both studies were set up in a manner that almost guaranteed

failure. Frankly, I think that this was done intentionally to

generate negative publicity for this non-toxic approach.

 

Cartilage - A three- to four-month trial of bovine or shark

cartilage. The mucopolysaccharides in cartilage stimulate the immune

system and normalize malignant cells. Ninety percent of patients with

a variety of cancers responded to a clinical trial of bovine

cartilage; shark cartilage has demonstrated success rates of 25 to

50%. VitaCarte bovine cartilage is available from Phoenix BioLabs,

800/947-8482 (suggested dose is 9 g a day). Shark cartilage can be

obtained from MHP 800-647-0074 (suggested dose is 1 g per 3 pounds of

body weight).

 

Coenzyme Q10 (CoQ10) - Used as an effective therapy in congestive

heart failure, CoQ10 has only recently been studied as a cancer

treatment. Cancer patients have been found to have deficiencies of

CoQ10. Clinical trials in breast cancer have resulted in no further

metastases, improved quality of life (no weight loss and less pain),

and partial remission in six of 32 patients. Vitaline makes a

chewable CoQ10 with vitamin E (800/648-4755; 503/482-9231, in

Canada).

 

Essiac Tea - 2 ounces 3 times a day. This blend of four herbs -

burdock root, sheep's sorrel, slippery elm and Indian rhubarb root-

has its genesis in Native American medicinal folklore. Since it

was " discovered " by Canadian nurse Rene Caisse in the 1920s,

thousands have claimed to have had their cancers cured by this tea.

I'd keep on searching. We have the formula if you are interested in

purchasing the individual herbs in bulk.

 

Finally, you should know that if I were battling cancer - or any

serious disease, for that matter- I would be in a constant search for

effective, non-toxic therapies. One place to begin that search is

with Ralph Moss, Ph.D. He is probably the most knowledgeable writer

in the world on alternative therapies for cancer, and has recently

published a 530-page book, Cancer Therapy, The Independent Consumer's

Guide to Nontoxic Treatment and Prevention. (Equinox Press, New York,

NY, 1995). In addition, Dr. Moss offers a report service called

Healing Choices, which ascertains, through a questionnaire, the type

and severity of cancer, and suggests alternatives. This costs $250,

and it is well worth it. If I had cancer, I would start here for more

information. You can get more information by sending a large SASE to

The Cancer Chronicles, 2 Lincoln Square, Suite 31A, New York, NY

10023, or by calling Melissa Wolf at 718/636-4433.

 

Another source of information is People Against Cancer, which

provides a comprehensive counseling service called the Alternative

Therapy Program. It includes a review of your medical records by a

network of doctors using alternative therapies. It also costs $250.

People Against Cancer can be reached at 515/972-4444. Their Internet

address is: http://www.dodgenet.com/nocancer.

 

This is certainly not my final say on cancer treatment, because it

changes as new research is done. I want to say again that what I

would do is not a recommendation for you. However, it is not a

reasonable belief to think that conventional cancer experts offer the

best approaches for most cancers. There is just too much evidence to

the contrary. One of these days there may not be a need

for ''alternative' approaches to cancer. Until then, look for the

answers to the cancer riddle in the growing field of alternatives,

because they are obviously not present in our armamentarium of

conventional therapies. "