RALPH MOSS ON CHEMOTHERAPY, LAETRILE, COLEY'S TOXINS, BURZYNSKI, & CANCER POLITI

[Guest guest]

http://www.whale.to/c/moss.html

 

RALPH MOSS ON CHEMOTHERAPY, LAETRILE, COLEY'S TOXINS, BURZYNSKI, &

CANCER POLITICS

 

(Laura Lee radio show, 1994)

 

LL (Laura Lee). The medical establishment keeps telling us that there

are only 3 ways to treat cancer--chemotherapy, radiation and surgery.

Many people disagree and among them is Dr Ralph Moss, author of a new

book, Cancer Therapy. Dr Moss, can we have a bit of background and why

you became interested and decided to devote your practice and research

to cancer?

 

RM. Twenty years ago I was hired at Memorial Sloane Kettering (MSK)

cancer centre in New York as the science writer, later promoted to

assistant director of public affairs. Shortly after I went to work

there I went to visit an elderly Japanese scientist, Kanematsu

Sugiura, who astonished me when he told me he was working on Laetrile

(B17), at the time it was the most controversial thing in cancer

...reputed to be a cure for cancer. We in public affairs were giving

out statements that Laetrile was worthless, it was quackery, and

people should not abandon proven therapies. I was astonished that our

most distinguished scientist would be bothering with something like

this, and I said why are you doing this if it does not work. He took

down lab books and showed me that in fact Laetrile is dramatically

effective in stopping the spread of cancer. The animals were

genetically programmed to get breast cancer and about 80 - 90% of them

normally get spread of the cancer from the breast to the lungs which

is a common route in humans, also for how people die of breast cancer,

and instead when they gave the animals Laetrile by injection only

10-20% of them got lung metasteses. And these facts were verified by

many people, including the pathology department.

 

LL So this is verified, that Laetrile can have this positive effect?

 

RM We were finding this and yet we in public affairs were told to

issue statements to the exact opposite of what we were finding

scientifically, and as the years went by I got more rapped up in this

thing and 3 years later I said all this in my own press conference,

and was fired the next day, " for failing to carry out his most basic

job responsibility " --ie to lie to the public what goes on in cancer

research

 

LL How can these people justify this in their own minds?

 

RM Basically the attitude was best expressed by Lewis Thomas, the

president of the centre, who told my boss, as he would not see me, " I

am not going to die on the barricades for Laetrile. It is not a cure,

it is only a palliative, (meaning it relieves pain and stops the

spread of cancer), if it were a cure it might be a different story,

but I am not going to give up my career, to die on the barricades " .

That's how they justified it in their own minds. I could not do that,

nor could Dr Sugiura, who never renounced the results of his own

studies, despite the fact they put enormous pressure on him to do so.

 

LL Are we practicing science here, or medicine, or politics?

 

RM Politics. Political science as we say!

 

LL You were mentioning that patients hear cure rate when something

very different is being talked about. And we can go into the poor

statistics for the standard modalities. They are not that effective,

which is why everyone is looking for an alternative.

 

RM When I was at MSK a lot of very weird things started to happen to

me, there was this cognitive distance between what I was told, and was

writing about treatment, especially chemotherapy, and what I was

seeing with my own eyes. One time I heard the head of the intensive

care unit give a talk in which he bragged about how he had one of the

lowest mortality rates in his unit. I went out to lunch with him,

where he became a bit inebriated, and told me how he managed to get

those statistics---by wheeling the dying patients out into the

corridor where they died and didn't sully our departments record.

 

LL Lets skew those statistics any way that looks good to us.

 

RM Another time I went to interview a breast surgeon, and he had a

lamp in the shape of a women's breast on his desk. I couldn't even get

out a single interview question I was so astounded by this

insensivity, and here women were flocking in to have their breasts

removed by this guy, and I thought...I didn't have any idea what was

wrong but it was that twilight zone of knowing, feeling that something

was definitely wrong but not knowing what it was. It was only when I

had the enforced leisure from being fired that I was able to really

look into it.

 

LL It is interesting how many establishment doctors start out, in many

cases to disprove the efficacy of alternative therapies and become

advocates of alternative therapies. I don't hear many stories of the

other way round.

 

RM No, it is not likely. So, I started to look into the whole question

of chemotherapy in particular, that is the cutting edge of orthodox

treatment and I have now completed a report---Chemotherapy, How, When,

and Why. With emphasis on the why. Although we do give some

information for those who are taking chemotherapy on what they can

take to decrease the side effects. Basically it is a very critical and

comprehensive look, for we deal with about 60 different types of

cancer, and all of the FDA approved anti cancer drugs. The bottom line

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

procedure---Hodgkin's disease, Acute Lymphocytic Leukemia, Testicular

cancer, and Choriocarcinoma. Testicular cancer has yielded to platinum

containing drugs.

 

LL It probably makes you impotent

 

RM It does more than that. It is extremely damaging to the body, but

it does lead to a very extended life for people with this problem. An

interesting thing is that platinum is the old homoeopathic drug for

problems of the testicles or the ovaries, and Hahnemann proved that on

himself 180 years ago, but Allopathic medicine takes this basic idea,

without giving credit of course, ups the dose by the billions because

they can't conceive of small doses having significant biological

effect, and consequently put in massive amounts of homoeopathic

medicines and cause tremendous toxicity and other problems, second

cancers down the road and so forth.

 

Outside those 4 or 5 treatments for which chemotherapy is effective

there are a few where there is very moderate effectiveness in terms of

life extension---lung cancer and ovarian cancer with a possibility of

colon cancer.

 

LL When you look at the statistics chemotherapy is a standard

treatment for all types of cancer generally speaking.

 

RM Yes, it has become.

 

LL However, when you really look at the statistics, you were saying,

only a few respond.

 

RM. Yes, 2-4%.

 

LL. How in the world, Dr Moss, can it be considered a standard cure,

when it works for 2-4, and very specific ones?

 

RM We are dealing with an industry. It is not supported by the facts.

The way that it is done is this. The drugs are tested in test tubes,

and they look for things that will kill cells. After you have found

something that kills cells, cancer cells, cell lines which are very

abnormal non-typical sort of growths, maybe a new life form almost,

then you put it into animals. Then if it kills the cancers before it

kills the animals, and shrinks the tumours, you consider you have an

active agent. You then put it into people, and go through the 3 phases

the FDA prescribes for this, and basically if you can shrink the

tumour 50% or more for 28 days you have got the FDA's definition of an

active drug. That is called a response rate, so you have a response..

 

LL Different from a cure?

 

RM Quite a bit because when you look to see if there is any life

prolongation from taking this treatment what you find is all kinds of

hocus pocus and song and dance about the disease free survival, and

this and that. In the end there is no proof that chemotherapy in the

vast majority of cases actually extends life, and this is the GREAT

LIE about chemotherapy, that somehow there is a correlation between

shrinking a tumour and extending the life of the patient.

 

LL Or that there is a correlation between looking at a cancer cell in

a test tube and the tumour in someone's body.

 

RM Absolutely. What happens as you grow those cells in cell lines they

become very weird. Hundreds and hundreds of generations later they

don't even look like even normal human cancer cells. They are things

that grow under glass, immortal cells, unlike normal body cells or

normal cancer cells. So much cancer research is very questionable

because it is based on this cell line research.

 

LL Politics it seems is the word you must understand in order to

understand what is going on. It is not science, it is not medicine, it

is politics..

 

RM And big money You have to understand that cancer is 1/9th of the

overall health budget in the United States. The last figures I have

seen from the American Cancer Society of money spent on cancer

indirectly or directly at 107 Billion dollars.

 

LL AIDS is a 4 billion dollar...

 

RM Research, but you can't come compare AIDS to cancer. Cancer we are

talking about well over a million cases a year, not counting skin

cancer which probably equals that.

 

LL One million new cases discounting skin cancer?

 

RM Right. About 630,000 people die every year of cancer in the US, and

it really is an epidemic disease. We have got a tremendous industry.

Every one of those people who is getting cancer and dying of it is

going to be treated, and these treatments are extremely expensive.

Chemo is tens of thousands, sometimes hundreds of thousands of

dollars. A bone marrow transplantation which is basically another way

of giving chemotherapy or radiation can run to about 150,000 dollars

per person, and is almost never effective. It kills about 25%..

 

LL Why carry on doing it?

 

RM Because of the money, which is tremendous. If you look at the board

of directors of MSK you will find that the drug industry has a

dominant position on that board. One company in particular, Bristol

Myers, which produces between 40 -50% of all the chemotherapy in the

world, and they have top positions at MSK hospital.

 

LL Doesn't that constitute a serious conflict of interest?

 

RM They are selling their own drugs to that particular hospital but

they have written into the by-laws of the centre that it does not

constitute a conflict of interest to sell their company drugs to the

centre. They get around it by not taking a salary. They are not paid,

they are volunteers. Look what happens. You have a man like Benno

Schmidt, who was first head of the president's cancer panel under

Nixon, then becomes head of MSK. He then goes on using the knowledge

he gained at MSK to set up his own drug company to make tens of

millions of dollars.

 

LL Another revolving door.

 

RM You bet, and a big one.

 

RM We have had 50 years of American Cancer Society (ACS) brainwashing

on the question of cancer, so most people out there believe we are

making progress in the war on cancer. We are not, we are losing the

war. The statistics...

 

LL 1.7% increase in terms of success rate a year, its nothing

 

RM By the time we get to the 24 century we might have effective

treatments, Star Trek will be long gone by that time. It is not

working, yet we have had this infrastructure, the cancer establishment

imposed over this country for the last 50 years. It is a fund raising

machine. The ACS takes in 400 million dollars a year. What are they

doing with it? Where are the treatments? Where are the cures? Where is

the good research? They are way way way out, far, drifting out to sea

in terms of anything approaching human cancer. We have to re-orientate

ourselves around the actual patient in front of you. The only thing

that matters in cancer or any other disease.

 

Instead we have this very abstract, academic, cruel, inhuman system

which is now going to be forced down our throats by government decree.

 

LL I am told the tobacco industry tries to influence the boards of

directors of some of these cancer hospitals.

 

RM At MSK in New York we had two top executives of Philip Morris and

one of Nabisco on the board. You will not find much research being

done on tobacco at MSK. They are not interested in tobacco, that is

old hat, they are interested in P53 and other kind of weird genes that

they find in their petri dishes. At the Tish hospital at NYU (New York

University), named after the Tish family that is are chairman of the

board. They own the Laura Lard tobacco company, so they giveth and

taketh away. They are going to give you cancer and then they will

" cure " you of cancer, although they can't cure you. They will give you

3 months extra survival with vicious chemotherapy and call that a cure.

 

LL I'd rather die gracefully in my sleep.

 

RM You bet. You better not smoke and then most of the lung cancer wont

happen, but that is one example of how the tobacco industry has

infiltrated the medical establishment. The bigger thing is the

industrial interests. If you look at the board of MSK you will find

the who's who of the petro-chemical industry. Why are they there?

Again, very little research is done on the effect of chemicals in

causing cancer. We know that is probably one of the main things that

causes cancer---petro-chemical pollution. But that is denied denied.

Of course it's denied, because the people who are paying the bill and

directing cancer research have a vested interest in keeping the

scientists away from that area, and keeping them focused on DRUG

cures, things that can be patented, marketed and so forth, and the FDA

is in total collusion in this. They have set up a system where it

costs hundreds of millions of dollars to develop a new drug in the US.

Well, right there you know you are dealing with a monopoly situation.

 

LL You can't be a small company and afford those research bills.

 

RM You can't get in. It is a poker game where the ante is a 100

million dollars.

 

LL Don't we have anti-trust laws?

 

RM We are supposed to, and I have gone to people in the anti-trust

division of the justice department. Their attitude is show us the

smoking gun, in other words we want to see the conspiracy. Well I

don't have access to the yachts off shore..

 

LL You can see it. You have big business looking at cancer as a

potential growth industry.

 

RM You can come up with any results you want. You can buy the

scientists to do that research. There are hired hands out there to

attack any non-toxic treatment that you want to attack, and come up

with some phoney results, give people synthetic vitamins with

carcinogens, and that proves that vitamins cause cancer instead of

curing cancer. You name it. If you have got the money you can buy the

minority of scientists who are corrupt, but they are out there.

 

Basically most people know how the data on the breast cancer study at

the National Cancer Institute was fudged. The question of wether

lumpectomy was as good as mastectomy is now in somewhat doubt, because

of the fake data that was submitted to the national surgical adjuvent

and bowel project run out of the university of Pittsburg. This kind of

corruption and fakery, and abuse of the public has been going on as

long as the war on cancer has been going on. The fact is that all of

the studies that have been supervised by the National Cancer Institute

should now be re-examined by congressional committees to see wether or

not there is real corruption in all of them.

 

LL If there was an even playing field some of the alternative

therapies would shine.

 

RM The Japanese are not afraid to look at things that are non-toxic.

Here we will look at natural things as long as they are more toxic

than chemotherapy. We don't want any competition. It would be unfair

competition to have a less toxic drug than chemotherapy because

everyone would then flock to the less toxic drug.

 

LL What is really sick is the industry leaders value their bottom line

more than the well being and life of people.

 

RM Yes, because we have set up a situation where it costs hundreds of

millions of dollars for a new drug. Once you have got a situation like

that you have got to have a patent on the drug.

 

LL We know that natural substances cannot be patented.

 

RM If you want to change it you change the law that establishes the

need for double blind clinical studies in drugs. You eliminate the

efficacy clause from the Harris amendment to the food and drug act,

which Harris himself didn't even want. This was imposed by the FDA and

the drug industry. This upped the ante and made a regulatory barrier.

Now instead of it taking 1 million dollars to establish the safety of

a drug, you now need 300 million dollars. So none of the small

inventors, or the people with good ideas can ever hope to possibly

hope to get their drugs approved. They put you in administrative limbo

where the best you ever hope to get is this backburner simmering kind

of thing, and I know of a number of good scientists who have got IND's

(Investigative New Drug Applications) to test drugs, but when you try

to market the drug they will put you out of business, and Dr Burzynski

is the prime example. Brilliant scientist, wonderful results in

cancer, validated by the NCI, and yet he is on the verge of federal

indictment.

 

RM If there is one thing you should pick up from this show tonight

it's this: If you ever get into a situation where a doctor recommends

chemotherapy to you or your family ask to see the studies that the

chemotherapy actually extends the life of the patient.

 

LL With chemo you may be shortening your life, certainly be under

discomfort, certainly incurring huge costs. It can bankrupt you or

your family. You have a right to know

 

RM What are the actual toxicity? Go to a library to get a physicians

desk reference, or my chemotherapy report. I am continuously amazed. I

was doing some research due to my consultations on AML--a type of

Leukemia, and the treatment is so intense and toxic that in the older

group that this particular patient fell into 40% die from the toxicity

of the treatment.

 

LL 40% would have lived longer if they hadn't had the treatment.

 

RM And the cure rate is miniscule, under 10%. It is terrible odds. In

Las Vagas you wouldn't gamble with those odds unless you were crazy.

The doctors fudge the statistics. They are confounding and confusing

different issues, the response rate, the cure rate, the one year

survival rate and so forth. Many doctors don't know any better. They

are afraid. The widest prairies have electric fences and they are

afraid to wander too close to the edge of their own field to find out

what is on the other side because they know from the example of Dr

Jonathen Wright or Burzynski that if you stray too far from the herd

you are liable to bump into one of those electric fences. So there is

a kind of self censorship. I have seen this a hundred times. You talk

to oncologists and doctors, and they are individually open-minded and

interested but as an aggregate they will not move until their

leadership moves because that is a very dangerous thing for an

oncologist to do. They would stand out too much, and they can't afford

to do that as they all depend on referrals from everyone else. So the

minute you get branded as a " quack " ----it is a conformist world, and

in the professions the peer pressure is what makes for success or

failure. Nobody wants to alienate their peers, so you don't stick your

neck out or you will get your head chopped off.

 

LL Lop the tallest poppy. Where does good science happen? (Continues...)

 

RM.. Dr Gavalo in Russia who gets 75% five year survival in most

carcinomas. Unbelievable. CG hormone. Trophoblastic cells. Cancer is

similar to pregnancy. Cancer looks like a pregnancy. Dr

Lance....isolate the blocking factor...analised proteins anti tumour

necrosis factor....blocking factors of tumour.. we dismount immune

system when pregnant... remove blocking proteins 3 patients with over

2 pounds of cancer...within 24 hours all dead on autopsy they did not

have a single cancer cells all gone in 48 hours....but kidneys could

not handle it....they did not know about detox....the word detox does

not appear in the main textbook on cancer or the main medical

textbook...the word in medicine refers to heroin addicts and getting

them off heroin....they do not conceive that their are such things as

toxins created by a tumour...where do they think it all goes?....it

goes straight to the kidney, liver, lungs....Lentz learned to go

slower... surgery can reduce tumour load...this failure is more

exciting than most of the success I read about...it shows you how

incredibly powerful the immune system is...it is not just that people

have failing immune systems...it is primarily that the tumour can

evade the immune system....it does not see the tumour there...if you

make it visible it will go in and wipe it out....the Burton Clinic in

the Bahamas does this....Lentz did learn (1986) 2 patients who were

terminal are still alive.... in 1902 a man, Beard, discovered cancer

is trophoblast, wrong time wrong place............cancer is far too

intelligent to submit to the raid approach of Allopathic medicine

 

LL Other research?

 

RM Burzynski, only available in Texas. Some results are amazing, for

example in brain cancer. The NCI sent a team, finally, after we were

asking them for 15 years, and validated the cases. I met one of the

boys who was treated for a tumour about the size of pear in his brain.

Within one month the tumour was gone, and it is 3 years down the road,

cancer free. He has damage from the radiation treatment he recieved

prior to that, he lost some of his hearing In non Hodgkinson lymphoma

I have a friend who had stage 4, went through chemo, radiation and

bone barrow stransplant. He failed the bone marrow transplantation.

More chemotherapy. Read my book and found out about Dr Burzynski, and

its 5 years, and he is compleatly free of cancer... an amazing

case.....he also took the whole " chicken soup " of vitamins etc.....why

is this better than chemo?...it is very low toxicity

 

LL You are talking about not damaged immune systems but how the immune

system was fooled.

 

RM Exactly, but you still have to have an immune system. Chemo

decreases it..

 

LL And you are going to die when some other germ comes along.

 

RM Or another cancer comes along, which happens to about 10% of the

people who survive the chemotherapy, they develop a second cancer, and

they will never cure that one. It is almost impossible to cure.

 

Another treatment COLEYS TOXINS which is one of the ones that excites

me the most. This is not generally available though I do know of ways

to get it in different forms. It was invented here like many of our

alternative treatments and then they have to go abroad to be used.

There is a Coley's hospital in China. They can get it in China but not

here. It was discovered at MSK in 1893 and the results...over a 1000

people were treated with it. It is basically a high fever treatment.

Some guy rung a radio show I was on, he had a sarcoma that was

operated on, it spread, and his doctor sent him to Dr Coley. He was 13

at the time and 95 now. This is 82 years. Sarcoma is an incurable

disease. A blow away treatment. In advanced terminal breast cancer

they got compleat remissions in 50% of the cases using this treatment.

 

LL This is criminal.

 

RM That is not saying what you would get if you used it in conjunction

with surgery, you may get a 100%

 

LL It is criminal that these are not incorporated into the standard

procedures.

 

RM You bet, it is criminal. I have known about this and lived with it

for 20 years. You know what? THEY know about it at Sloane Kettering.

They even put Coleys picture in their publicity material, as a pioneer

of immunology, but they would never use the treatment themselves. They

want to develop DRUGS that can be spun off like Tumour Necrosis

Factor, like these other immunologically based drug treatments, highly

toxic, destructive of the immune system, incredibly expensive.

 

LL It's big business.

 

RM Yes, he who pays the piper calls the tune, and the drug industry

pays the piper. Do you know what the MSK president makes?

 

LL $400,000?

 

RM That's chicken feed. The president of MSK makes 2 million dollars a

year, 2.2 million.

 

RM Coleys toxins are bacteria that force the body to fever and kill

them and the cancer as well. Tumours are very poorly vascularised, so

you disrupt their ability to get nutrients and to get rid of wastes by

raising the body temperature.....this is really an effective treatment

and it an OUTRAGEOUS crime of the century that we at MSK were able to

cure cancer a 100 years ago that they can't cure today. This is a

fraud being perpetrated on the public...

 

LL Why isn't the New York Times writing about this?

 

RM The chairman of the board of Bristol Myers, the main company

producing anti-cancer drugs, who also happens to be on the board of

MSK, is also on the board of the New York Times. Everybody's brother

in law is an oncologist, or on the board of somebody else's something

or other, so it is a money making thing for the establishment. A

hundred and seven billion, with a B, dollars a year business, and we

are not going to get rid of it easily. The point is use your vote....

 

LL Or your mind

 

RM Or your mind, what a novel idea.

 

LL Lets work with it (cancer) rather than go out to stamp on it like a

cockroach.

 

RM Chemotherapy is machismo practiced to the N'th degree. It is a war

in which you are the battleground, lucky you, I mean you have to treat

your body better than that. The folks that bring you the toxic

chemicals that cause the cancer are then kind enough to bring you

toxic chemicals that allegedly.....

 

LL We live in interesting times.