Cancer what you may not have been told

[Guest guest]

The following is a paper I wrote. In 1991 was son, at

the age of 13 was diagnosed with terminal brain

cancer, astrocytoma grade 4. Long story short, I did

not allow him to have chemo or radiation. I took him

out of the country for alternative therapy. It was

gone in a year. He has been cancer free since 1992. I

have been helping people from all over the world, by

the way, I do not charge nor do I receive

endorsements. I feel this would be a conflict of

interest. If anyone needs help in seeking help please

do not hesitate to email me off site. Hope this

helps. I realize it is a bit long but well worth the

read.

 

" Unless we put medical freedom into the Constitution,

the time will come when medicine will organize into an

undercover dictatorship ... To restrict the art of

healing to one class of men and deny equal privileges

to others will constitute the Bastille of medical

science. All such laws are un-American and despotic

and have no place in a republic ... The Constitution

of this republic should make special privilege for

medical freedom as well as religious freedom. "

 

Benjamin Rush, M.D., signer of The Declaration of

Independence, physician to George Washington.

From THE AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF BENJAMIN RUSH

 

 

 

CANCER: What you may Not Have Been Told

 

In 1971, President Richard Nixon declared ‘war on

cancer’. Since that time, the US has spent more than

one trillion dollars on treatment and research. One

trillion dollars! That is one thousand billion US

dollars. Unfortunately, the overall death rate from

cancer has increased 5% and some cancers have

increased several hundred percent.

 

The very basic concept of cancer is that certain types

of cells have gone ‘amuck’ in large numbers. Cancer

can be of two types: one benign, which is localized

and only causes problems by its location and rate of

growth; the second one is malignant, which means it

can move from one place to another. We all have

cancer cells. I have them; you have them; newborn

babies have them. Whether or not these cells will

mutate depends on our immune system’s ability to

identify these cells as abnormal and kill them.

 

Cancer is caused by a number of factors. Some of the

major factors are chronic stealth infections

(microorganisms), chemicals, radiation and strong

electromagnetic fields. The microorganisms that cause

cancer include adenoviruses, herpes viruses,

hepadenoviruses, and the papovaviruses, which contain

the, now famous, SV40 virus. The SV40 was found as a

contaminant in the polio vaccines during the 60s and

70s and has been shown to cause various types of brain

cancers in humans.

 

Investigating microorganisms as a cause for various

cancers is only now being explored. Since 1967, when

the US Surgeon General, William H. Stewart, made the

statement, “The book is closed on infectious disease,”

funding for the investigation of microorganisms, as a

causal factor for cancer and other diseases, dried up.

The focus was redirected to the research on genetic

causes of cancer. Subsequently, billions of dollars

went into this research. Ultimately, this new focus

and increased revenue has made no appreciable

difference to life expectancy or quality of life for

any patient. It has not improved or identified viable

treatments of cancer or other diseases.

 

Cancer-causing genes have been knowingly identified

through laboratory testing within the medial

community. So what? Has this finding made any

difference in life expectancy or quality of life? No.

It is interesting to note the current biotech

industry would not be where it is today without this

research and the financial support out of every one of

our pockets. Every time we ‘walk for the cure’, hold

benefits, and make donations, we are supporting the

financial appetite of the problem and not the

solution.

 

Chemicals are another cancer causing agent. In 1990,

Eilhu Richter and Jerry Westin of Hebrew University’s

Hadassah School of Medicine observed that between 1976

and 1986, Israel was the only country among

twenty-eight studied that showed a breast cancer rate

drop. Among those twenty-eight, was the United

States. The richest, most powerful, and supposedly,

most medically advanced country in the world, was out

ranked by Israel.

 

The Israeli researchers were anticipating a 20% rise

in breast cancer mortality, consistent with other

countries. In fact, they amazingly observed an 8%

drop. In the youngest group, instead of a 20% rise,

the rate dropped 34%. Statistically, this is a 50%

change. This magnitude of change, in the study of

cancer, is enormous. The identifiable reason for this

drop in mortality rates was attributed to the 1978 ban

on three organochloride pesticides: alpha benzene

hexachloride, gamma benzene hexachloride (lindane

which is typically used for lice treatment), and DDT.

There are many studies showing the toxic effects of

chemicals. Interestingly, chemical companies have

paid for studies that come to the conclusion that

chemicals are good. Yet, independent, non-industry

organizations show significantly that chemicals are

harmful. This, in turn, poses a very important

question of whose interests are truly being served.

 

One of the first forms of cancer treatment was

radiation. They began using this form of treatment in

the early 1900’s. Hum, the statistics stated earlier

says that even as late as 1971 cancer is on the

incline not the decline. In more recent years, it has

even been proven that radiation is yet another known

cancer causing carcinogen, beyond a doubt. Do you see

a pattern forming?

 

ElectoMagnetic Fields (EMF’s) are known to cause

cancer. Electricians are ten times more likely than

anyone in the general population of developing cancer

such as leukemia. Cell towers, cell phones, high

power electrical lines and computers have all been

named as potential contributors to a cancer diagnosis.

 

The mechanism as to how cancer becomes established is

always the same, oxygen deficiency. Two-time Noble

Prize winner for medicine, Otto Warberg, theorized

that cancer was caused by the replacement of oxygen

with the fermentation of sugar. In an oxygen-deprived

state, the normal tissue cells regress in their

development and start to behave like bacteria

utilizing sugar as their means to get energy. Cancer

cells, when they behave like bacteria, lose their

growth inhibition. They do not remain anchored to

other cells and have an indefinite proliferative life

span.

 

Conventional therapies for the battle against cancer

include chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and surgery.

Patients need to beware that what their medical doctor

shares with them regarding cancer treatments does not

present the entire picture. A doctor’s word should

not be taken as gospel without further research. In

1978, for example, the Office of Technology

Assessment, an arm of the US Congress, issued a major

report concluding that only 10-20% of all procedures

used in medical practices have been shown to be

efficacious by controlled trial. In other words,

80-90% of what doctors implement as treatment is

unscientific guesswork. Since then, this study, to my

knowledge, has not been repeated, as it would only

serve to strengthen the case against these

conventional therapies.

 

The pharmaceutical industry, which is the most

profitable industry in the world, has a strong vested

interest in what goes on in all countries’

governments, in particular, the industrial nations.

On Capitol Hill, Washington DC, there are 625 (my last

count) registered lobbyists that are on the

pharmaceutical industry payrolls. That equates to

more drug lobbyists than senators and congressmen

combined. Unfortunately, I have not found similar

statistics for Canada, though I have no reason to

believe that the situation is much better there. In

the US, more than half of the pharmaceutical lobbyists

were either former members of congress (21) or worked

in congress or other federal agencies (295).

Basically, they are ‘hired guns’ to ensure that the

interests of the pharmaceutical industry are well

served. In the 1999-2000 US federal election $262

million was spent by this industry for political

influence. Governments are not immune to the

influence of the long arm of the pharmaceutical

industry. Pharmaceutical companies are not interested

in winning the war on cancer. Their interest lie in

waging the war on cancer, not winning the war. Why?

In waging a war, maximum profits for pharmaceuticals

are guaranteed by those convinced of victory over a

bitter enemy, regardless of the evidence to prove

otherwise.

 

Two time Nobel Prize winner Dr. Linus Pauling wrote,

“Everyone should know that the war on cancer is

largely a fraud.” According to the US National Cancer

Institute: a five-year survival rate for cancer for

all nationalities was 49% in 1974 to 1975 and 50.7% in

1981 to 1986. This represents merely a 1.7%

improvement in thirteen years. However, the 1.7%

improvement may be due to earlier diagnosis rather

than true survival rates. Overall, from 1947-1984,

the incidence of cancer in the general US population

grew by 40%.

 

Over the years, official medicine has poured billions

of dollars into radiation, chemotherapy and surgical

research as the major weapons in the ‘war on cancer’.

The overall cancer death rate has risen by 5% since

the war began. (Richard Waters, “Options”, 1993.)

Dr. Alan Levin of the University of California Medical

School stated, “most cancer patients in this country

die of chemotherapy”. According to Dr. John Cairn of

the Harvard University School of Public Health, “Only

2-3% of the nearly one-half million Americans

diagnosed with cancer every year are being saved by

chemotherapy.” In March 1971, a New York Journal of

Medicine study found that 10% of 133 patients using

the Chemo drug 5FU (5 Flouro Uracil) died as a result

of the drug’s toxicity. Some doctors jokingly refer

to this drug as ‘5 Feet Under’.

 

In February 1996, the WHO (World Health Organization)

formally designated Tamoxifen as a carcinogen.

According to Dr. Samuel Epstien of the University of

Illinois, the drug Tamoxifen (commonly used for breast

cancer treatment) is “a rip roaring liver carcinogen”.

The National Cancer Institute and Zeneca

Pharmaceutical lobbied to keep legislators from adding

Tamoxifen to its list of carcinogens. (Science News,

March 2, 1996). Zeneca’s annual revenues from

Tamoxifen were $470 million. Interestingly enough,

Zeneca Pharmaceuticals is one of the world’s largest

producers of pesticides and industrial chemicals.

Zeneca makes the carcinogenic herbicide acetochlor and

other chlorine products creating annual revenues of

over $300 million on these chemicals.

 

Acetochlor and all polychlorinated herbicides are

estrogen mimickers. The body produces natural

estrogen and progesterone in a balanced combination.

When estrogen is produced in larger amounts, the body

becomes imbalanced and thus potentially puts the body

into a compromised condition. This imbalance of

hormones can lead to cancer. Tamoxifen is promoted as

a form of chemotherapy treatment. Zeneca claims

Tamoxifen blocks estrogen mimickers.

 

Not surprisingly, who would know more about estrogens

effects on the body and how to block this than the

company who produces estrogen mimickers. Estrogen

mimickers on their own have one to one estrogenicity

factor. This means that one molecule of estrogen

mimicker acts like one molecule of estrogen. Put two

estrogen mimickers together and you have a compound

that can have an estrogenicity factor of 1600. This

means that the effects of two molecules of two

estrogen mimickers can act like 1600 molecules of

estrogen. It is broadly known that estrogen is a

significant cause of breast cancer.

 

An NCI (National Cancer Institute) study followed

46,355 women and tracked the 2,082 cases of

postmenopausal breast cancer that occurred among them.

Women on estrogens only were 20% higher risk. Those

on both estrogens and progestins had a forty-percent

higher risk. A UCLA study found that women who

received combined Hormone Replacement Therapy for five

to ten years were 51% more likely to develop breast

cancer.

 

Radiation is another weapon in the war against cancer

yet radiation is also a major cause of cancer itself.

According to internationally respected radiation

expert Rosalie Bertells, her research provided

evidence that mammography’s cause more cancer than

they detect. And regular mammography’s cause

cumulative radiation damage not to mention that as a

diagnostic tool they are very ineffective.

 

This crude method will detect cancers that are no less

than seven years old. Yet radiation therapy is a cash

cow for most cancer therapy hospitals and clinics.

Not to mention, most doctors are lavishly treated by

pharmaceutical companies with gifts. According to ABC

Primetime Thursday night, (Feb 21, 2002) doctors were

coerced with $6 billion in parties, gifts and trips to

“educate” medical doctors.

 

Radiation and chemotherapy are toxic substances which

in turn can, and do, generate cancer. Adding a poison

to kill a poison is not good math for our bodies. Yet

government bows to the dictums of industry which

supports and promotes these aggressive interventions.

 

 

Government institutions are generally against

alternative medicine. As an example, the Ontario

government proposed deregulation of Naturopathic

Medicine in 1982 as one MPP explained, “Naturopathic

Doctors are not a threat to the public and do not need

to be regulated because since their legislative

inception in 1925 they have not killed anyone.

Therefore, naturopathic doctors do not need to be

regulated.”

 

In the US, official medicine also stifles alternative

medicine. The Office of Alternative Medicine was

established within the National Institute of Health

and given a mere $2 million research budget. Yet the

same year, the National Institute of Health spent $68

million of taxpayers’ money on a single research trial

for one drug. One chemical received 34 times more

funding than an entire research department that funds

non-patentable research.

 

In conclusion, imagine that your body is the house of

your soul and you have been putting garbage in one

room in your house for years. Eventually, this garbage

finally attracts flies. Flies are like cancer.

Chemotherapy and radiation therapy may kill the flies

but they also contribute to the garbage. So, if you

don’t get rid of the garbage, the flies will come

back.

 

The comments I have made regarding the use of

chemotherapy and radiation are mine. Everyone must

make their own decision on what they want to put into

or expose their body to.

 

Jenny Hauf

 

 

 

 

 

Immature love is loving someone because you need them, mature love is needing

someone because you love them!

[Guest guest]

Hello Jenny,

 

I applaud you for the article and for offering help. I am very much

against chemo/radiotherapy and I always support effective alernative

approaches. My friend has five brain tumors and unfortunately his

wife agreed to LGU gamma rays radiotreatment since surgery was out of

question due to the tumors location. What alternative options are

there for brain tumors? I am familiar with all other cancers but so

far didn't have anybody with brain tumor. I posted here few days ago

about Dr. Simoncini who is using sodium bicarbonate with great

success even for brain cancers but I thought you could share your

knowing on other alternatives. Thank you very much! jana

 

, Jenny Hauf <jennyhauf

wrote:

>

> The following is a paper I wrote. In 1991 was son, at

> the age of 13 was diagnosed with terminal brain

> cancer, astrocytoma grade 4. Long story short, I did

> not allow him to have chemo or radiation. I took him

> out of the country for alternative therapy. It was

> gone in a year. He has been cancer free since 1992. I

> have been helping people from all over the world, by

> the way, I do not charge nor do I receive

> endorsements.