Cancer and chemo

[Guest guest]

From: " Dr. Eliezer Ben-ph " <eliezer@...>

Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2001 2:44 PM

Subject: Re: Cancer

> Chemotherapy Report

>

> In the Physicians Desk Reference, available in any library or doctor's

> office, the top 10

> chemotherapy drugs used in the USA all have cancer as a listed side

effect.

> In fact, depending on

> how you interpret the statistics, more cancer patients die from the

> chemotherapy than of the cancer.

> Medical statisticians count these deaths as a success for chemotherapy

> because the patient did not

> die of cancer. A select few know that chemotherapy drugs are not FDA

> approved. They are legally

> administered under the Rule of Probable Cause " states that experimental

> drugs may be used if the

> side effect of the drug is no worse than the end effect of the disease. In

> fact, every chemotherapy

> bottle is stamped " For Experimental Use Only " and the patient must sign a

> release before the doctor

> will prescribe or administer it.

>

> Do We Need a New Approach to Cancer?

>

> In 1971 Nixon announced the War on Cancer, and promised a cure by

> the 1977

> bicentennial.

>

> In each of the 25 years since, more Americans have died of cancer than the

> year before.

> The failure of chemotherapy to control cancer has become apparent even to

> the oncology

> establishment.

>

> Scientific American featured a recent cover story entitled: " The War on

> Cancer -- It's Being Lost. "

> In it, eminent epidemiologist C. Bailar III, MD, PhD, Chairman of the

> Department of

> Epidemiology and Biostatistics at McGill University cited the relentless

> increase in cancer deaths in

> the face of growing use of toxic chemotherapy.

>

> The prestigious British medical journal The Lancet, decrying the failure

of

> conventional therapy to

> stop the rise in breast cancer deaths, noted the discrepancy between

public

> perception and reality. " If

> one were to believe all the media hype, the triumphalism of the [medical]

> profession in published

> research, and the almost weekly miracle breakthroughs trumpeted by the

> cancer charities, one might

> be surprised that women are dying at all from this cancer " it observed.

> Noting that conventional

> therapies -- chemotherapy, radiation and surgery -- had been pushed to

their

> limits with dismal

> results, the editorial called on researchers to " challenge dogma and

> redirect research efforts along

> more fruitful lines. "

>

> Cairns, professor of microbiology at Harvard University, published a

> devastating 1985 critique

> in Scientific American. " Aside from certain rare cancers, it is not

possible

> to detect any sudden

> changes in the death rates for any of the major cancers that could be

> credited to chemotherapy.

> Whether any of the common cancers can be cured by chemotherapy has yet to

be

> established. "

> In fact, chemotherapy is curative in very few cancers -- testicular,

> Hodgkin's, choriocarcinoma,

> childhood leukemia. In most common solid tumors -- lung, colon, breast,

> etc. -- chemotherapy is

> NOT curative.

>

> In an article entitled " Chemotherapy: Snake-Oil Remedy? " that appeared in

> the Los Angeles Times

> of 1/9/87, Dr. F. Shapiro explained that while " some oncologists

> inform their patients of the

> lack of evidence that treatments work...others may well be misled by

> scientific papers that express

> unwarranted optimism about chemotherapy. Still others respond to an

economic

> incentive.

> Physicians can earn much more money running active chemotherapy practices

> than they can

> providing solace and relief.. to dying patients and their families. "

>

> Dr. Shapiro is hardly alone. Alan C. Nixon, PhD, Past President of the

> American Chemical Society

> wrote that " As a chemist trained to interpret data, it is incomprehensible

> to me that physicians can

> ignore the clear evidence that chemotherapy does much, much more harm than

> good. "

> Why so much use of chemotherapy if it does so little good? Well for one

> thing, drug companies

> provide huge economic incentives

>

> In 1990, $3.53 billion was spent on chemotherapy. By 1994 that figure had

> more than doubled to

> $7.51 billion. This relentless increase in chemo use was accompanied by a

> relentless increase in

> cancer deaths.

>

> Oncologist Albert Braverman MD wrote in 1991 that " no disseminated

neoplasm

> (cancer) incurable

> in 1975 is curable today.

>

> Why the growth in chemotherapy in the face of such failure? A look at the

> financial

> interrelationships between a large cancer center such as Memorial

> Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center

> and the companies that make billions selling chemo drugs is revealing.

> III,

> Chairman of the MSKCC Board of Overseers and Managers, is a director of

> Bristol-Myers Squibb,

> the world's largest producer of chemotherapy drugs. Gelb,

> Vice-Chairman of the MSKCC

> board is Bristol-Myers Chairman of the Board. Furlaud, another

MSKCC

> board member,

> recently retired as Bristol Myers' president. Marks MD, MSKCC's

> President and CEO, is a

> director of Pfizer.

>

> There are more and more reports by establishment oncologists doubting the

> value of

> chemotherapy, even to the point of rejecting it outright.

>

> One of these, cancer biostatistician Dr. Ulrich Abel, of Heidelberg,

> Germany, issued a

> monograph titled Chemotherapy of Advanced Epithelial Cancer in 1990. (See

> Healing Journal,

> No. 1-2, Vol.7 of the Gerson Institute.) Epithelial cancers comprise the

> most common forms of

> adenocarcinoma: lung, breast, prostate, colon, etc. Dr. Abel stated, " A

> sober and unprejudiced

> analysis of the literature, " has rarely revealed any therapeutic success

by

> the regimens in

> question in treating advanced epithelial cancer. " While chemotherapy is

> being used more and

> more extensively, more than a million people die worldwide of these

cancers

> annually - and a

> majority have received some form of chemotherapy before dying. Dr. Abel

> further concluded,

> after polling hundreds of cancer doctors, " The personal view of many

> oncologists seems to be in

> striking contrast to communications intended for the public. " Abel cited

> studies that have shown

> " that many oncologists would not take chemotherapy themselves if they had

> cancer. " (The

> Cancer Chronicles, December, 1990.) " Even though toxic drugs often do

effect

> a response, a

> partial or complete shrinkage of the tumor, this reduction does not

prolong

> expected survival, "

> Abel finds. " Sometimes, in fact, the cancer returns more aggressively than

> before, since the

> chemo fosters the growth of resistant cell lines. " Besides, the chemo has

> severely damaged the

> body's own defenses, the immune system and often the kidneys as well as

the

> liver.

> In an especially dramatic table, Dr. Abel displays the results of

> chemotherapy in patients with

> various types of cancers, as the improvement of survival rates, compared

to

> untreated patients.

>

> This table shows:

>

> In colorectal cancer: no evidence survival is improved.

> Gastric cancer: no clear evidence.

> Pancreatic cancer: Study completely negative. Longer survival in control

> (untreated)

> group.[emphasis mine:rsc]

> Bladder: no clinical trial done.

> Breast cancer: No direct evidence that chemotherapy prolongs survival;

its

> use is " ethically

> questionable. " (That is particularly newsworthy, since all breast cancer

> patients, before or after

> surgery, are given chemotherapy drugs.)

> Ovarian cancer: no direct evidence.

> Cervix and uterus: No improved survival.

> Head and neck: no survival benefit but occasional shrinkage of tumors.

>

> More recently, the Nov. 17, 1994 Wall Street Journal, in a front page

> article on political pressure

> being exerted for insurance companies to pay for bone marrow transplants

in

> advanced breast

> cancer, experts give a totally negative report on this approach. The

> procedure, called ABMT

> (Autologous Bone Marrow Transplant) involves temporarily removing some of

> the patient's

> bone marrow, applying a potentially lethal dose of chemotherapy, then

> returning the marrow to

> the patient's body. The cost of this procedure is in excess of $100,000.00

..

>

> The University of Colorado's Dr. , continues the Journal, claims

that,

> with conventional

> chemotherapy, not more than 2% of patients with spreading breast cancer

get

> a positive

> response. A non-profit independent technology assessment agency, the

> Emergency Care

> Research Institute (ECRI), says that for the average woman with the most

> advanced form of

> breast cancer, the high dose ABMT procedure is not only worthless, but

also

> likely to shorten

> her life. This report by the ECRI is based on an analysis of 40 studies of

> ABMT and similar

> procedures involving a total of 1,017 patients, and 61 studies covering

> 4,852 patients who had

> conventional chemotherapy Dr. Erlick, the project's lead analyst,

> concluded that " many

> patients are led to believe that this (ABMT) is a successful therapy. We

> found no evidence

> whatsoever that it provides any benefit. "

>

>

> Dr. Eliezer Ben-ph

> Personal and Financial Freedom

> www.naturalsolutionsradio.com (home page)

> www.herbs4health.com (herb shop)

> www.successlinks.com/global-3 (financial freedom)

> www.16thamendment.com/global-3 (IRS income tax fraud)

> www.taxstatement.com/global-3 (IRS income tax fraud)

>

> Watch your thoughts; they become your words.

> Watch your words; they become your actions.

> Watch your actions; they become your habits.

> Watch your habits; they become your character.

> Watch your character, it becomes your destiny.