Re: chemo & Moss's Questioning Chemotherapy (& lymphoma)

June 8, 2004

Hi Iris,

From: " iris atzmon " <atzmonh@...>

> " Questioning Chemo " tells the true story behind the chemo

treatments,

> the trials on chemo, what they found and mainly, what they didn't

find, and that is, a cure for cancer.

I agree.

> The picture is that no chemotherapy is truely effective against

cancer

This is true for MOST cancers (see below).

> But, the chemo causes the cancer to be more resistant and the cancer

can spread more aggresively.

Very true.

> I personally think quitting chemo is one of

> the most responsible things a person can do for himself

In MOST cases, I strongly agree.

I agree w/most of the rest of what you wrote.

Hi ,

> From: J Purcell

> Mosses....'Questioning Chemo' is all about

See below.

Here's some info I've compiled on chemo:

The " malignancies...highly responsive to chemotherapy " are

essentially...choriocarcinoma, acute lymphocytic leukemia

(ALL)...lymphosarcoma, [Hodgkin's, Burkitt's, & some other lymphomas],

embryonal testicular cancer, Wilms' tumor, Ewing's sarcoma,

rhabdomyosarcoma, and retinoblastoma (Moss, 2000, p. 81), a few rare

cancers of childhood, and rarely small cell lung cancer (SCLC).

" 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. " Dr. Jürgen

Buche, Preventorium Inst.

Alternative_Breast_Cancer

" Most cancer patients in this country die of chemotherapy.

Chemotherapy does not eliminate breast, colon, or lung cancers. This

fact has been documented for over a decade " Levin, MD UCSF The

Healing of Cancer;

www.whatareweswallowing.freeserve.co.uk/chemospill.htm

" Ulrich Abel, Ph.D., of the Heidelberg Tumor Center in Germany,

conducted a comprehensive review of the world literature on survival

among cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. He found that

chemotherapy can help only about 3% of the patients with epithelial

cancers (breast, lung, prostate, and colon) [Abel [1990], Cytostatic

Therapy of Advanced Epithelial Tumors: A Critique. Stuggart, Germany:

Hippocrates Verlag]....Statistics show that chemotherapy is useless in

treating about 80% of malignant tumors, in particular...cancers of the

lungs, breast, colon, pancreas, and bladder [D. Schmahl, (1989)

" Experimental Development of Anticancer Drugs. " Current Cancer

Research (pp. 157-243). New York: Springer. Chemotherapy's 7% " cure "

rate is all the more pathetic when you consider that it typically

refers to survival for only five years and thus overlooks the risk of

" secondary cancers " (Diamond et al., 2000, p. 191).

" Chemotherapy and radiation can increase the risk of developing a

second cancer by up to 100 times, according to Dr. S. Epstein. "

Congressional Record, Sept. 9, 1987

" ...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. " Alan C. Nixon, PhD, former

president of American Chemical Society

" Whether any of the common cancers can be cured by chemotherapy has

yet to be established " ( Cairns, Scientific American, 60, Nov.

1985).

" study of oncologists to determine how they would respond to a

diagnosis of cancer...58 out of 64 doctors said that all chemotherapy

programs were unacceptable to them and their family members. The

overriding reason for this decision was that the drugs are ineffective

and have an unacceptable degree of toxicity....radiologist who told me

this: `If I get cancer, I'm going to Mexico.' " Daily Dose, August 30,

2002

from the newsletter of s II, M.D.

reprinted at the following websites:

http://dreamline.freeyellow.com/#scandal;

www.getandstaywell.com/archive10.shtml

www.networkingtheinternet.com/dxm66.htm

www.aspartame.ca/page_c4.htm

www.fugitt.com/article/chemo1.htm

For a critical analysis of the benefits, indications, and

contraindications for chemotherapy, see

Ralph Moss's book Questioning Chemotherapy and

www.whale.to/cancer/chemo.html (includes quotes from Moss's book)

www.shirleys-wellness-cafe.com/cancer.htm

www.ralphmoss.com/dgo2000.html

www.apricotsfromgod.org/ralphmoss.htm

www.whatareweswallowing.freeserve.co.uk/deathbydoctoring4.htm (quotes

from doctors)

www.healingcancernaturally.com/why_alternatives2.html

www.kroisscancercenter.com (click on methods)

www.kanker-actueel.nl/ca_hi_e.html

www.geocities.com/freee80/surgery2.html

www.brwwellness.com/ten.htm

www.bcaction.org/Pages/SearchablePages/2003Newsletters/Newsletter077A.

html

www.mercola.com/2003/aug/13/cancer_drugs.htm (summary of above

website)

Also, most alternative cancer treatments (including dietary

approaches) are much more effective if a patient has NOT had

chemotherapy (and particularly not extensive chemotherapy). However, I

don't believe this applies to vincristine and bleomycin, which (to the

best of my knowledge) do little or no harm to the immune system.

> ....I only had stage 2 non hodgkins lymphoma....

> Does anyone find my decision/desire

> to quit the chemo after the 4th round even if the pet-scan shows

that a

> little bit of the cancer is still in the tissues....unsound,

unpracticle

> or dangerous?

I can't answer that except to say that I personally would quit the

chemo EXCEPT perhaps if I had a type of lyphoma (e.g, Burkitt's)

that's particularly responsive to chemo. If I had such a lymphoma, I'd

be more inclined to continue the chemo if it was vincristine or

bleomycin than if it was another drug. However, under almost no

circumstances would take/continue chemo w/o doing intensive alt.

therapies simultaneously and w/o the guidance of an integrative cancer

practitioner.

Leonard

June 9, 2004

From: " iris atzmon " <atzmonh@...>

> I did mention that the chemo helps several types of cancer-

> I wrote it's considered good against the liquid ones. (lymphoma,

leukemia)-

You did.

> A Lancet study showed that patients with lymphoma who received

chemo,

> had no benefit over those who didn't and the researchers concluded

that

> why suffer if the situation is the same.

> The Lancet 2003, 362; 516-22

Perhaps for a particular type(s) of lymphoma, and a particular type(s)

of chemo? Certain chemo drugs are quite effective against certain

lymphomas (typically fast-growing ones).

> Ralph Moss says in his book something that I think is also impotant-

> the side effects are still the same side effects, also in lymphoma

and

> leukemia treatments

Whether Moss says that or not, it is untrue. Vincristine (which is

used for at least 1 of those, and which is derived from periwinkle)

does very little damage to the immune system (despite other major side

effects), and is thus compatible w/immunotherapy. Most other chemo

drugs do enormous damage and thus greatly interfere w/immunotherapy.

And there are vast differences between many chemo drugs' side effects.

Some (e.g., certain oral chemo drugs) have relatively minimal side

effects (they may have come out since Moss's book).

> BTW I tried 2 links you sent and they don't open.

Thanks. I'll delete them from my list.

June 10, 2004

Hi Leonard,

I did mention that the chemo helps several types of cancer-

I wrote it's considered good against the liquid ones. (lymphoma, leukemia)-

Moss mentions it in the book.

Anyway, there are critics also about this issue.

A Lancet study showed that patients with lymphoma who received chemo,

had no benefit over those who didn't and the researchers concluded that

why suffer if the situation is the same.

The Lancet 2003, 362; 516-22

Ralph Moss says in his book something that I think is also impotant-

the side effects are still the same side effects, also in lymphoma and

leukemia treatments

(although I think that's it's maybe less, because the treatments are maybe

shorter if they help)

wrote that he felt the chemo didn't help in the big picture.

Anyway, if a person chooses chemo (like you for example), it's a much better

situation

than people who are pushed to do it because the doctors claim that " there

are no other things " .

So many people accept the chemo's toxicity just because they are strongly

convinced that there are no choices.

Only yesterday I mentioned to someone that the treatments are known to

cause cancer and he answered-

" well, but the doses are low enough, and people are cured " . Needless to say-

he is fed by the media's/doctors biased

messages. That's the main problem, I think you'll agree.

BTW I tried 2 links you sent and they don't open.

Iris.

Re: [ ] chemo & Moss's " Questioning Chemotherapy " ( &

lymphoma)

> Hi Iris,

> From: " iris atzmon " <atzmonh@...>

> > " Questioning Chemo " tells the true story behind the chemo

> treatments,

> > the trials on chemo, what they found and mainly, what they didn't

> find, and that is, a cure for cancer.

> I agree.

>

> > The picture is that no chemotherapy is truely effective against

> cancer

> This is true for MOST cancers (see below).

>

> > But, the chemo causes the cancer to be more resistant and the cancer

> can spread more aggresively.

> Very true.

>

> > I personally think quitting chemo is one of

> > the most responsible things a person can do for himself

> In MOST cases, I strongly agree.

> I agree w/most of the rest of what you wrote.

>

> Hi ,

> > From: J Purcell

> > Mosses....'Questioning Chemo' is all about

> See below.

>

> Here's some info I've compiled on chemo:

>

> The " malignancies...highly responsive to chemotherapy " are

> essentially...choriocarcinoma, acute lymphocytic leukemia

> (ALL)...lymphosarcoma, [Hodgkin's, Burkitt's, & some other lymphomas],

> embryonal testicular cancer, Wilms' tumor, Ewing's sarcoma,

> rhabdomyosarcoma, and retinoblastoma (Moss, 2000, p. 81), a few rare

> cancers of childhood, and rarely small cell lung cancer (SCLC).

> " 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. " Dr. Jürgen

> Buche, Preventorium Inst.

> Alternative_Breast_Cancer

> " Most cancer patients in this country die of chemotherapy.

> Chemotherapy does not eliminate breast, colon, or lung cancers. This

> fact has been documented for over a decade " Levin, MD UCSF The

> Healing of Cancer;

> www.whatareweswallowing.freeserve.co.uk/chemospill.htm

> " Ulrich Abel, Ph.D., of the Heidelberg Tumor Center in Germany,

> conducted a comprehensive review of the world literature on survival

> among cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. He found that

> chemotherapy can help only about 3% of the patients with epithelial

> cancers (breast, lung, prostate, and colon) [Abel [1990], Cytostatic

> Therapy of Advanced Epithelial Tumors: A Critique. Stuggart, Germany:

> Hippocrates Verlag]....Statistics show that chemotherapy is useless in

> treating about 80% of malignant tumors, in particular...cancers of the

> lungs, breast, colon, pancreas, and bladder [D. Schmahl, (1989)

> " Experimental Development of Anticancer Drugs. " Current Cancer

> Research (pp. 157-243). New York: Springer. Chemotherapy's 7% " cure "

> rate is all the more pathetic when you consider that it typically

> refers to survival for only five years and thus overlooks the risk of

> " secondary cancers " (Diamond et al., 2000, p. 191).

> " Chemotherapy and radiation can increase the risk of developing a

> second cancer by up to 100 times, according to Dr. S. Epstein. "

> Congressional Record, Sept. 9, 1987

> " ...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. " Alan C. Nixon, PhD, former

> president of American Chemical Society

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

> yet to be established " ( Cairns, Scientific American, 60, Nov.

> 1985).

> " study of oncologists to determine how they would respond to a

> diagnosis of cancer...58 out of 64 doctors said that all chemotherapy

> programs were unacceptable to them and their family members. The

> overriding reason for this decision was that the drugs are ineffective

> and have an unacceptable degree of toxicity....radiologist who told me

> this: `If I get cancer, I'm going to Mexico.' " Daily Dose, August 30,

> 2002

> from the newsletter of s II, M.D.

> reprinted at the following websites:

> http://dreamline.freeyellow.com/#scandal;

> www.getandstaywell.com/archive10.shtml

> www.networkingtheinternet.com/dxm66.htm

> www.aspartame.ca/page_c4.htm

> www.fugitt.com/article/chemo1.htm

> For a critical analysis of the benefits, indications, and

> contraindications for chemotherapy, see

> Ralph Moss's book Questioning Chemotherapy and

> www.whale.to/cancer/chemo.html (includes quotes from Moss's book)

> www.shirleys-wellness-cafe.com/cancer.htm

> www.ralphmoss.com/dgo2000.html

> www.apricotsfromgod.org/ralphmoss.htm

> www.whatareweswallowing.freeserve.co.uk/deathbydoctoring4.htm (quotes

> from doctors)

> www.healingcancernaturally.com/why_alternatives2.html

> www.kroisscancercenter.com (click on methods)

> www.kanker-actueel.nl/ca_hi_e.html

> www.geocities.com/freee80/surgery2.html

> www.brwwellness.com/ten.htm

> www.bcaction.org/Pages/SearchablePages/2003Newsletters/Newsletter077A.

> html

> www.mercola.com/2003/aug/13/cancer_drugs.htm (summary of above

> website)

> Also, most alternative cancer treatments (including dietary

> approaches) are much more effective if a patient has NOT had

> chemotherapy (and particularly not extensive chemotherapy). However, I

> don't believe this applies to vincristine and bleomycin, which (to the

> best of my knowledge) do little or no harm to the immune system.

>

> > ....I only had stage 2 non hodgkins lymphoma....

> > Does anyone find my decision/desire

> > to quit the chemo after the 4th round even if the pet-scan shows

> that a

> > little bit of the cancer is still in the tissues....unsound,

> unpracticle

> > or dangerous?

> I can't answer that except to say that I personally would quit the

> chemo EXCEPT perhaps if I had a type of lyphoma (e.g, Burkitt's)

> that's particularly responsive to chemo. If I had such a lymphoma, I'd

> be more inclined to continue the chemo if it was vincristine or

> bleomycin than if it was another drug. However, under almost no

> circumstances would take/continue chemo w/o doing intensive alt.

> therapies simultaneously and w/o the guidance of an integrative cancer

> practitioner.

>

> Leonard

>

June 10, 2004

You wrote that:

Vincristine (which is used for at least 1 of those, and which is derived from

periwinkle)

does very little damage to the immune system (despite other major side

effects).

What do you mean by: " despite other major side effects " - ?

why do you think it's not from immune response?

Moss about Vincristine:

....many drugs are derived from... natural poisons such as ....vincristine.

However,

even when natural, such substances are still poisons that have been adapted for

the purpose of killing cells, rather than for providing nutrition or gently

boosting immunity " .

Vincristine is used for brain tumors in combination with 3 other drugs.

The combination is listed as a known human carcinogen.

About new chemo drugs: there are all the time new ones, and that's the way it's

going to be for years,

but I think there is a very common principle here: they are the ones that give

" the shrinking effect " illusion in the labratory and not checked for the long

run, they are not intended to cure but to shrink, they don't treat the cause of

cancer, and they

are foreign molucules to the body. Hence, they can't be what I'm looking for.

That's only my opinion, but I think that from the minute I understood this

principle, that sums the matter up

for all the current and future chemo. I don't need to check them one by one, and

the body will always

tell me: " hey, you put here something I don't know nor like, get it out of

here " . I just feel I can't lie to my body,

thanks God the body gives signs of toxicity, how else can people understand that

almost everybody else

(apart from the body) is lying?.... (the doctors, media and PR firms....)

Iris.

Re: [ ] chemo & Moss's " Questioning Chemotherapy " ( &

lymphoma)

From: " iris atzmon " <atzmonh@...>

> I did mention that the chemo helps several types of cancer-

> I wrote it's considered good against the liquid ones. (lymphoma,

leukemia)-

You did.

> A Lancet study showed that patients with lymphoma who received

chemo,

> had no benefit over those who didn't and the researchers concluded

that

> why suffer if the situation is the same.

> The Lancet 2003, 362; 516-22

Perhaps for a particular type(s) of lymphoma, and a particular type(s)

of chemo? Certain chemo drugs are quite effective against certain

lymphomas (typically fast-growing ones).

> Ralph Moss says in his book something that I think is also impotant-

> the side effects are still the same side effects, also in lymphoma

and

> leukemia treatments

Whether Moss says that or not, it is untrue. Vincristine (which is

used for at least 1 of those, and which is derived from periwinkle)

does very little damage to the immune system (despite other major side

effects), and is thus compatible w/immunotherapy. Most other chemo

drugs do enormous damage and thus greatly interfere w/immunotherapy.

And there are vast differences between many chemo drugs' side effects.

Some (e.g., certain oral chemo drugs) have relatively minimal side

effects (they may have come out since Moss's book).

> BTW I tried 2 links you sent and they don't open.

Thanks. I'll delete them from my list.

June 10, 2004

From: " iris atzmon " <atzmonh@...>

> You wrote that:

> Vincristine (which is used for at least 1 of those, and which is

derived from periwinkle)

> does very little damage to the immune system (despite other major

side

> effects).

>

> What do you mean by: " despite other major side effects " - ?

I believe hair loss and occasionally pain and nerve damage.

> why do you think it's not from immune response?

I don't know if I really understand your question. I was told by

someone extremely knowledgeable about chemo, immunotherapy, and their

biochemistry, that it (unlike most chemo drugs other than bleomycin)

is " compatible w/immunotherapy " and does minimal damage to the immune

system. I've heard similar things elsewhere. I suspect the reason

Gerson therapy (according to 1 source) is sometimes effective in

post-chemo lymphoma patients (but not other post-chemo cancer

patients) is due to the use of vincristine rather than other drugs.

Since my last post, I read that it can suppress bone marrow (white

blood cell production), but my understanding is that the overall

suppression/damage to the immune system is minimal, unlike most other

chemo drugs.

> Moss about Vincristine:

> ...many drugs are derived from... natural poisons such as

.....vincristine. However,

> even when natural, such substances are still poisons that have been

adapted for the purpose of killing cells, rather than for providing

nutrition or gently boosting immunity " .

>

> Vincristine is used for brain tumors in combination with 3 other

drugs.

> The combination is listed as a known human carcinogen.

> About new chemo drugs: there are all the time new ones, and that's

the way it's going to be for years,

> but I think there is a very common principle here: they are the ones

that give " the shrinking effect " illusion in the labratory and not

checked for the long run, they are not intended to cure but to shrink,

they don't treat the cause of cancer, and they

> are foreign molucules to the body. Hence, they can't be what I'm

looking for.

I agree w/most of this but believe it has little relevance to the

desirability or undesirability of using vincristine, which I believe

saves huge numbers of lives, even though it wouldn't be my 1st choice

(particularly in full-dose) except for acute leukemia (ALL), for which

the vast majority of alt. therapies are ineffective or inadequate.

June 11, 2004

I believe hair loss and occasionally pain and nerve damage.

Since my last post, I read that it can suppress bone marrow (white

blood cell production), but my understanding is that the overall

suppression/damage to the immune system is minimal, unlike most other

chemo drugs.

- I think the effects you described above are not so minimal and they show that

it's not so bio compatible.

About the natural source: remember, that to make a patent, there is always

chemical manipulation.

which I believe saves huge numbers of lives.... except for acute leukemia (ALL),

for which

the vast majority of alt. therapies are ineffective or inadequate.

- Do you have a basis for this belief?

I don't know if it saved many lives because I didn't look for info on this

specific drug and the results,

but I know that all the chemo drugs are tested for the shrinking effect, they

are not meant to cure.

That's a basic common thing to them, it's a policy of the tests.

It's really not accurate to say that most alternative can't deal with this

type of cancer.

BTW- there are also natural chemoterapies, they are not in hospital use just

because they are not profitable,

but it doesn't say they are not effective. They are not toxic to healthy cells.

They don't cause hair to fall, nor

bone marrow suppression.