Re: [FlaxSeedOil2] Dr. Moss interview re: Sloane Kettering / cancer etc.

[Guest guest]

Hi Dave,

While this article has been around a long time, it is an excellent reminder

to all of us, since nothing seems to be improving except that a few people

are beginning " using their mind. " It`s sad, criminal and absolutely an

abomination that the " powers that be " are allowed to continue " business as

usual. " For that reason, it`s best to find your own path, stop " sitting on

the fence " and do your own research, regarless what your family, friends or

medicoes think. Try finding the researchers mentioned in the article and

focus on Dr. Budwig as a good start... Thanks and best, and a Very Happy

Dr. Budwig New Year to everybody, Ciao for now. Have a Great 2004! Mike

Cinelli

============================================================================

======

[FlaxSeedOil2] Dr. Moss interview re: Sloane Kettering / cancer

etc.

> I believe that this is very important (and revealing) information from a

> respected authority on cancer. It is a long read but, I think, worth

every

> syllable. Since it is almost 10 yrs. old, sadly, the dilema for anyone

> dealing with (or wanting to avoid) cancer is even more challenging today.

>

> Dave Perkins

> " enjoy being "

>

> My sites:

> www.betterwayhealth.com

> www.aboutbetaglucan.com

>

> -------------

>

> Ralph W. Moss, Ph.D. is director of the The Moss Reports for cancer

> patients. Dr. Moss is the author of eleven books and three documentaries

on

> cancer-related topics. He is or has been an advisor on alternative cancer

> treatments to the National Institutes of Health, the National Cancer

> Institute, the American Urological Association, Columbia University, the

> University of Texas, the G. Komen Foundation and the German Society

of

> Oncology. He wrote the first article on alternative medicine for the

> Encyclopedia Britannica yearbook. He is listed in Marquis Who's Who in

> America, Who's Who in the World, Who's Who in the East, and Who's Who in

> Entertainment (as a film documentarian).

>

> Ralph Moss on Chemotherapy, Laetrile,

> Coley's Toxins, Burzynski, & Cancer Politics

> Lee radio show, 1994

>

>

>

> LL: 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 , 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.

>

> 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 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 lard

> [sic] 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 won't

> 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. 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 amendment to the food and drug act, which

> 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 AM L-- 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 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?

>

> 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 cell...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 transplant. 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 1,000 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 complete 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.

>

> 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.

>

>

> Note:

> The contents of the posts on FlaxSeedOil2 are purely educational and are

not intended to diagnose or treat any illness. Always consult your doctor

about the diagnosis and treatment of health problems.

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Dianna, Good research work. [ www.iatclinic.com/index.asp and

http://cancerguide.org/coley.html ]. Anyone who clicks on these links will

be much better informed.The references and sources are excellent.

It is very interesting to see that Germany in the 1950`s and 1960`s was not

as liberal in cancer treatments as it is today.[ See reference to Dr.

Issels, on trumped up charges for which he was later acquitted, but had been

locked up with murderers and killers. ]So Dr. Budwig was in a very hostile

environment back then when she started her campaign to let the world know

that cancer can be cured by nutritional means, eh? What a brave woman.

Further, it is good to know that some people around the world will try to

keep Dr. Coley`s protocol goin. Hoever WHO, and the WTO mechanism pushing

Codex Alimentarius, and the restriction on Supplements and Vitamin,

especially in Germany, TheUK, and Australia and N.Z., indicate new

approaches to keep people from recovering naturally. The trumped up campaign

against ephhedra, and our own Congress try to control the use of Supplenets

are not good signs. While we can, we should protest to our Congressemen (

Both Senators and our memeber of the House of Representatives). If we don`t

speak up for our own beliefs, they will do it for us. When we see our

government being driven by Champion advocates of Big Pharma , like Sec of

Defense Rumsfeldt, and Sec of Health, Tommy , both advocates of

experimental vaccines with wholesale use, we know we are in big trouble and

now is the time to vote them out.... Please note, I am A-Political but get

perturbed when these " paper-thin attempts " are made to " help " people. The

best help is " no help " , eh?

The figures of the success rate using Coley`s " fever technique " are most

encouragaing. Again, thanks for your input,Dianna.They are eye openers....

Ciao for now and a Happy Dr. Budwig New Year to all, Mike Cinelli

============================================================================

==

[FlaxSeedOil2] Dr. Moss interview re: Sloane Kettering /

> cancer

> etc.

>

>

> > I believe that this is very important (and revealing) information

> from a

> > respected authority on cancer. It is a long read but, I think, worth

> every

> > syllable. Since it is almost 10 yrs. old, sadly, the dilema for

> anyone

> > dealing with (or wanting to avoid) cancer is even more challenging

> today.

> >

> > Dave Perkins

> > " enjoy being "

> >

> > My sites:

> > www.betterwayhealth.com

> > www.aboutbetaglucan.com

> >

> > -------------

> >

> > Ralph W. Moss, Ph.D. is director of the The Moss Reports for cancer

> > patients. Dr. Moss is the author of eleven books and three

> documentaries

> on

> > cancer-related topics. He is or has been an advisor on alternative

> cancer

> > treatments to the National Institutes of Health, the National Cancer

> > Institute, the American Urological Association, Columbia University,

> the

> > University of Texas, the G. Komen Foundation and the German

> Society

> of

> > Oncology. He wrote the first article on alternative medicine for the

> > Encyclopedia Britannica yearbook. He is listed in Marquis Who's Who

> in

> > America, Who's Who in the World, Who's Who in the East, and Who's

> Who in

> > Entertainment (as a film documentarian).

> >

> > Ralph Moss on Chemotherapy, Laetrile,

> > Coley's Toxins, Burzynski, & Cancer Politics

> > Lee radio show, 1994

> >

> >

> >

> > LL: 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 , 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.

> >

> > 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

> 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

> lard

> > [sic] 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

> won't

> > 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. 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 amendment to the food and drug act, which

>

> > 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 AM L-- 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 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?

> >

> > 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 cell...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 transplant. 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 1,000 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 complete 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.

> >

> > 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.

> >

> >

> > Note:

> > The contents of the posts on FlaxSeedOil2 are purely educational and

> are

> not intended to diagnose or treat any illness. Always consult your

> doctor

> about the diagnosis and treatment of health problems.

> >

> >