The Cancer Scandal

[Guest guest]

The Cancer Scandal

by K.

Cancer deaths in the west have risen from 4% in 1900, to 25% in 1996. We

have been taught to believe that new chemicals in our environment have

caused the sharp rise, but evidence indicates that something much more

sinister is the cause.

The two most common cancer treatments are chemotherapy and radiotherapy:

Toxic poison and radiation. You will probably recieve both if diagnosed

with cancer, but nowhere can one find any proof that they work. Instead,

one finds statistical evidence that they do great harm.

Other treatments that do cure cancer, without any of the torture of

those two treatments, are rigorously suppressed with the force of law,

and by a total media black-out and misrepresentation of facts by

government organizations. There is a dramatic " series " of court battles

going on right now to suppress a new non-toxic cancer medicine that

actually works, according to the National Cancer Institute. Unlike the

Simpson media trial which was created by the press, this doctor's cured

cancer patients, and others still legally on treatment, picket outside

the court, -but get no press coverage at all.

First, check-out what these scientists have to say about chemotherapy

and radiotherapy.

This quote comes from CancerMed:

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. "

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.

From MedInfo:

Chemotherapy is an effective tool in extending the lives of colon cancer

patients; however, only about 5% of colon cancer patients see long term

remission, about the same rate as spontaneous remission.

This means you chances are no better taking the toxic poison which is

chemotherapy, than without it. The only differences are that you will

suffer much more during your last few months and do irrepairable damage

to vital organs.

These quotes are also from CancerMed:

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. He concluded that scientists must look in new

directions if they are ever to make progress against this unremitting

killer.

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,

hodgkins, choriocarcinoma, childhood leukemia. In most common solid

tumors -- lung, colon, breast, etc. -- chemotherapy is NOT curative.

This 1995 quote about radiation therapy comes from A. Stamey,

M.D: Professor and Chairman, Department of Urology, Stanford University

School of Medicine.

Much more worrisome, however, was the observation that the remaining 80%

of patients had a steeply rising PSA with an average doubling time of 15

months for clinical stage B cancer (those tumors thought to be confined

to the prostate) and 7 months for clinical state C cancer (tumors

thought to be outside the prostate but within the field of radiation).

Since their original doubling times for PSA before irradiation had to be

substantially slower(3), we raised the question of whether irradiation

converted the 80% who failed therapy into a faster-growing cancer.

Because of these observations, we do not believe that irradiation of the

prostate--by any technique--is currently justified until such time as

the 20% who appear cured can be identified and clearly separated from

the 80% of failures who may be made worse by the irradiation.

I find this one particularly interesting because my house-mate has stage

C prostate cancer and is scheduled for radiotherapy in mid Feb 97. It is

planned to here publish the doctor's response to Dr. Stamey's web page,

along with any evidence he can provide to show that it increases stage C

survival term of mortality.

Available evidence shows that neither surgery nor radiotherapy has been

proven in a randomised trial to be effective in controlling cancer

either by improving survival or reducing mortality.

Radiotherapy can reduce recurrence significantly but without affecting

overall survival. Chemotherapy has been shown in randomised trials to be

effective in increasing survival by a few weeks or months only in one

type of solid tumour - small-cell lung cancer. In view of the serious

side-effects experienced, even this treatment must also remain

questionable.

This quote seems to confirm the increased rate of cancer growth after

radiation. Radiation kills much of the tumour, but survivability is not

extended because it grows back faster.

Many more quotes by doctors and scientists are sprinkled about the web

which support the conclusion that no evidence exists showing improved

survivability from any of the cancer treatments recomended by the

medical establishment. Rather, most of them are known to block the

body's immune system, which is the only thing which does cure cancer,

and kill large numbers of normal cells in uninfected vital organs.

The advice given here is to challenge your doctor to provide statistical

evidence that treatment by chemo or radiation will improve your chances

before allowing their use on your body. If the treatments really do work

then evidence should be easy to provide. Will doctors give you advice

that they themselves would follow? Apparently, 58 out of 79 will

probably not.

In 1986, McGill Cancer Center scientists sent a questionnaire to 118

doctors who treated non-small-cell lung cancer. More than 3/4 of them

recruited patients and carried out trials of toxic drugs for lung

cancer. They were asked to imagine that they themselves had cancer, and

were asked which of six current trials they themselves would choose. 64

of the 79 respondents would not consent to be in a trial containing

cisplatin, a common chemotherapy drug. Fifty eight (out of 79) found all

the trials unacceptable. Their reason? The ineffectiveness of

chemotherapy and its unacceptable degree of toxicity.

Famed German biostatistician Ulrich Abel PhD also found in a similar

1989 study that " the personal views of many oncologists seem to be in

striking contrast to communications intended for the public. "

From CancerMed:

Most cancer experts believe we all develop cancer hundreds if not

millions of times in our lifetimes. Given the trillions of developing

cells, the millions of errors that can occur in the differentiating

(maturing) process of each cell, and our constant exposure to

carcinogenic substances (smoke, car fumes, radiation, etc.), the laws of

probability dictate that mis-developing cells must occur frequently in

the life of each individual. It stands to reason that a healthy body has

a corrective system to " reprogram " newly-developed cancer cells into

normal differentiation pathways before the cancer can take hold.

In 1900, 4% of American deaths were attributed to cancer, and in 1996

25% of American deaths were attributed to cancer. Can anybody spot the

growth " line " which predicts that everybody will die of cancer in 75

years?

According to the American Cancer Society:

About 544,000 Americans, or 4 of 10 patients who get cancer this year,

will be alive 5 years after diagnosis.

This might easily be rewritten as: About 544,000 Americans, or 4 of 10

patients who are diagnosed with cancer this year, will be alive 5 years

after treatment.

What is happening to cause part of the increase is remarkably simple,

but subtle: Early detection and destructive treatment. Because the body

usually heals its own cancers, and because cancer detection was so

primitive in 1900, most people who got cancer never knew; it stopped

growing before becoming noticable. Today most cancers are detected years

before they can become noticable to the patient, and the patient is

immediately started on a treatment process which destroys the bodies

ability to fight the cancer naturally, and which has only a 40% survival

rate.

Radiation therepy is obviously harmful, and chemotherapy is nothing

other than bringing the whole body so close to toxic death that most of

the slightly weaker cancer cells die. Both are torture for the patients

to endure, and put the patient under so much stress that the bodies

ability to heal itself is severely crippled. In both cases the few

remaining cancer cells, the hardiest ones, are left with little

opposition from the diminished immune system. The body is given no

chance to heal itself, and the cancer statistics are thereby stacked.

The statistics are also stacked by not taking into account the fact that

the likelyhood of natural cancer remission, the only kind of remission

there is, is a factor of time. In the old days a cancer might be

detected six months before death, whereas a cancer today can be spoted

years ealier. When people accept early treatment, which is totally

ineffective, they sacrifice much of their chance for the immune system

to trigger natural remission. In the case of the six month diagnosis

compared to the two year one, the patient has already had 300% more time

for the natural cure than the modern patient ever gets, because the

first thing modern doctors do is knock out the immune system and general

health with treatment. If today's death rate is a few times higher as a

result, it should suprise nobody.

Chemotherepy is pure torture, and not worth the few weeks or months of

time extension if it does not improve your odds of surviving. You need

your vital organs intact if you want to survive the illness free of

serious complications, but chemotherapy does them implicit harm. Unless

you survive your cancer, you will never again feel good from the moment

you start the treatment. I know because I watched my sister die of

chemotherapy. Although she had lung cancer far removed from her kidneys,

her kidneys failed shortly after a second bout of chemo, causing her

death. The chemo killed her, or possibly the radiation, -not the cancer;

though the cancer alone would have been kinder.

In step with advances in early detection are greatly increased numbers

of people being treated with toxic " medicine, " and rapidly rising

mortality statistics. You don't need to be a geniuse to figure it out.

On the other side of the coin are the non-toxic cures that have been

suppressed. The first example shown here comes from a man recognized as

a genius, and who finished first in his class of 250 student scientists.

What happens when you are an accredited cancer researcher and stumble

onto a simple, cheap, natural, and non-toxic remedy for cancer which

cures a majority of terminally ill patients in early testing? The FDA

refuses your application for further testing, then mount an offensive

mail campaign to your insurance company and other sensitive

organizations, until a judge orders them to stop. They can't legally

stop you from completing your current tests so they seize your truckload

of records, including the files on active patients, and allow you to

come to the head office anytime you need to photocopy a page or two,

provided a days notice is given and that you bring your own photocopier.

Then they finally haul you into court because some of your patients live

across state borders and recovered enough to go home before the

treatment was complete. They claim you committed mail fraud when you

sent the medicine across state lines to those patients, but you did get

a positive letter from your lawyer before mailing any medicine. Although

many of your patients stage protests outside the courthouse and notify

the press, the media ignores the whole thing and almost nobody ever

hears about it.

All this and much more, including several Grand Jury investigations

which never returned any indictments, is highly documented as happening

to S.R. Burzynski, MD, PhD, right now.

This comes from the National Cancer Institute Report about Dr.

Burzynski's medicine.

The site visit team determined that antitumor activity was documented in

this best case series and that the conduct of Phase II trials was

indicated to determine the response rate.

This says that the medicine does work, and that trials should be done to

see how well it works. However, so many unusual legal roadblocks have

been placed in front of these tests by the FDA, NCI, and Grand Jury that

it is unlikely that they will ever happen. The intent is to keep the

doctor constantly in court where his time is wasted, and ultimately to

jail him for what boils down to curing people of cancer.

Dr. Burzynski's medicine can be imagined to be a nutritional supplement

because it is a natural product of the body. Here's a piece of evidence

which proves that diet alone prevents cancer:

So how is it that any of us gets cancer in the first place? Is it

exposure to cigarette smoking, intense sunlight or perhaps the effect of

toxic food additives? Dr. Krebs thinks not. All of the hard biochemical

evidence points to the fact that cancer is a simple deficiency disease

of vitamin B17, long ago removed from our highly refined, western diets.

Krebs postulates that the so-called " carcinogens " are merely stress

triggers that finally expose the B17 deficiency with devastating effect.

The proof Krebs has presented over the years to support his claim is

impressive. Centuries ago we used to eat millet bread, rich in B17, but

now we chew our way through wheat which has none at all. For generations

our grandmothers used to carefully crush the seeds of plums, greengages,

cherries, apples, apricots and other members of the botanical family

ceae, and diligently mix them with their home made jams and

preserves. Grandma probably didn't know why she was doing it, but the

seeds of all these fruits are the most potent source of B17 in the

world. In the tropics, large quantities of B17 are found in cassava,

also known as tapioca. When did you last eat some?

Independent research has also proved that a Himalayan tribe known as the

" Hunza " never contract cancer of any kind so long as they stick to their

native diet which is exceptionally high in both apricots and millet.

However, once exposed to western diets they become as vulnerable as the

rest of us.

We can imagine that B17 increases the body's natural levels of

antineoplastons, Dr. Burzynski's medicine, thereby effecting the same

cure.

Something known as spontaneous remission cures malignant cancer in

untreated people. Because remission acts on all tumors at once, we know

that something must be distributed throughout the body to achieve it.

Since a nutritional link between diet and cancer is a fact, should we

not assume that by following the Hunza's diet our cancers will more

likely go into remission? You may try this using unbleached millet to

make bread or anything else you can find a recipe for, apricots, and

Grandma's old fashioned jam, in addition to regular treatment if you

dare.

Be advised that the FDA has made B17 illegal in most states because

overdoses can be toxic. Since most drugs fit this claim, it is a poor

defence: A handfull of people died out of over 175,000. Further, they

did tests with B17 on patients where 80% died of their cancer, though

they admit that 70% of them underwent radiation and/or chemotherapy

first, making them very weak, and don't specify which ones lived, or

which types of cancer were involved.

Any physician reading this article will probably be shaking with

self-righteous indignation at this stage, muttering to himself: " Yes,

but where is the PROOF??? "

Right here! Most people have heard of " spontaneous remission " , where the

cancer simply goes away, hopefully never to reappear. Spontaneous

remissions are exceedingly rare and vary from one form of cancer to

another. One virulent variety known as testicular chorionepithelioma has

never been known to produce a single spontaneous remission. Perhaps for

that precise reason, Dr. Krebs singled it out for special attention when

proving the effectiveness of B17 Laetrile in providing total control for

cancers. As recounts:

" In a banquet speech in San Francisco on November 19, 1967, Dr. Ernst T.

Krebs, Jr., briefly reviewed six such cases. Then he added:

Now there is an advantage in not having had prior radiation, because if

you have not received prior radiation that has failed, then you cannot

enjoy the imagined benefits of the delayed effects of prior radiation.

So this boy falls into the category of the " spontaneous regression... "

And when we look at this scientifically, we know that spontaneous

regression occurs in fewer than one in 150,000 cases of cancer. The

statistical possibility of spontaneous regression accounting for the

complete resolution of successive cases of testicular chorionepithelioma

is far greater than the statistical improbability of the sun not rising

tomorrow morning. "

Although this is a true story, forgiving the final exageration, it is

also true that skeptical organizations and government outlets

universally cite studies done on patients who first had radiation and or

chemotherapy, and always fail to mention Dr. Krebs' miracle cases.

Here is a model of cancer that seems to fit the facts. Damage to cells

happen frequently, due to energy rays and reactive chemicals. When this

happens the cell dies, and the body triggers a growth response in a

nearby cell to replace it. That much is fact. However, due to dietary

deficiency of B17, the signal to stop replacing the cell,

antineoplastons, never arrives. The result is what we call cancer. This

explains why conventional cancer treatments have no effect on cancer

survivability: they do not send the halt signal and cannot kill every

single cancer cell which has been programed to divide.

Strong evidence linking cancer with pregnancy exists. Pregnancy is a

condition where cells need to multiply, and one hormone responsible,

chorionic gonadotrophic (CGH), is detectable in home pregnancy tests.

What is not generally known is that such urine tests show some men to be

pregnant, those with cancer, because cancer is runnaway growth

associated with CGH. When cancer goes into remission, CGH levels

immediately drop, as do a woman's after giving birth.

Instead of searching for the chemical " halt " signal which ends CGH

production, government cancer organizations focus on killing the cancer

cells directly, resulting in death and unaccountable suffering in cancer

patients. Although they will let you try some alternative cancer

therapies, they will only do so after radiation and chemo fail, when

your body is so ravaged by the treatment that there is little chance of

a cure.

Such trials of alternative therapies are normally only permitted with

patients with advanced cancer. This is on the grounds that patients must

first be treated with the " proven " therapies of surgery, radiotherapy

and chemotherapy.

This quote, again, comes from CancerMed:

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. "

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.

If you want to do something to help stop the slaughter, visit Dr.

Burzynski's website, and especially help others find it too.

Original Content © Copyright 1997

Your Health produced by WORLD NEWSSTAND

Copyright © 1999. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.