Re: Alternative methods? I don't get it.

[Guest guest]

Gosh, , I too would like to believe that the medical profession knows

best, but I have come to the realization that it just is not true! I believe

our doctor has Matt's best interests at heart, but I think cancer treatment for

most types is incredibly limited in the time of survival vs quality of life it

offers. Patients and families have to feel we have some, even if just a little,

control over what is happening; perhaps the successes are anecdotal, I DON'T

CARE!!! The stories I have read about alternative treatments have given me

HOPE!!! We will follow conventional treatment, too if needed, BUT we believe

the little lifestyle change we have made by following alternative methods is

helping; if one BELIEVES isn't that half the battle??? This is a very personal

decision that each person battling this disease makes; I would never belittle

one who believes strictly and completely in modern medicine; I expect the same

courtesy from the doctors, our families and friends as we chose to fight this

both ways!!! Doctors don't always know what is best!!!!! We trust our doctor,

but the disease we are battling does not have positive stats; we are survivors

because we believe we can help ourselves fight the demon PC!!

Lori (Matt, husband/PC dx 12/3/98)

[ ] Alternative methods? I don't get it.

I don't understand what everyone is talking about - alternative methods with

cancer treatments? What is wrong with chemotherapy and such? My mom only had

that before her blood cord transplant (she has acute leukemia) and now she is

just taking pills (a whole bunch, almost 30 -- she may be exaggerating, tho).

Why would anyone want to go against Dr's wishes and risk doing an alternative

method? I would assume Dr's know best about these diseases, more than patients.

/

--

Kozak

~ Buffalo, NY native, living in central Sweden

~ A Syrian Hamster Owner & Breeder

~ Website: http://www.ductape.net/~heather

~ Hamsters: http://www.ductape.net/~heather/HamsterPicPage.html

[Guest guest]

wrote:

" I don't understand what everyone is talking about - alternative methods

with cancer treatments? What is wrong with chemotherapy and such? My mom

only had that before her blood cord transplant (she has acute leukemia) and

now she is just taking pills (a whole bunch, almost 30 -- she may be

exaggerating, tho). Why would anyone want to go against Dr's wishes and

risk doing an alternative method? I would assume Dr's know best about these

diseases, more than patients. "

Dear , I understand you and your opinion.

In oreder to understand why, you would have to read a book: " Questioning

Chemothearpy " by Moss.

Dusan

Did you know that 30 years ago Dr Hardin B. , Professor of Medical

Physics & Physiology at

Berkeley, found that the life expectancy of untreated cancer cases appears

to be FOUR TIMES

LONGER than that of treated individuals?

1969 Science Writers Conference of the ACS

" Chemotherapy is effective in only 2 to 4% of cancers----Hodgkin's disease,

Acute Lymphocytic

Leukemia (ALL, childhood leukemia), Testicular cancer, and Choriocarcinoma? "

Ralph Moss interview 1995

" There is no scientific evidence for chemotherapy being able to extend in

any appreciable way the

lives of patients suffering from the most common organic cancers, which

accounts for 80% of all

cancers? "

Dr Ulrich Abel. 1990

" Chemotherapy drugs are of benefit to at most 5% of cancer patients they

are given to, but are

routinely given to 50% of patients? "

Cairns of Harvard in Scientific American

" 75 % of oncologists, in one survey, said if they had cancer they would not

participate in

chemotherapy trials due to its " ineffectiveness and its unacceptable

toxicity " ? "

Interview of Dr Manners

" (Tamoxifen) is a garbage drug that made it to the top of the scrap heap.

It is DES in the making. " --Pierre Blais (Tamoxifen: A Major Medical Mistake?

by Sherrill Sellman). http://www.netspace.net.au/~newdome/hh_tamoxifen.html

" The trouble with tamoxifen by Dr. Zoltan P. Rona MD MSc "

http://www.selene.com/healthlink/tamoxifen.html

" Grouped together, the average cancer patient has a 50/50 chance of living

another 5 years; which are

the same odds he or she had in 1971? "

1969 Science Writers Conference of the ACS

" With some cancers, notably liver, lung, pancreas, bone and advanced

breast, our 5 year survival

from traditional therapy alone is virtually the same as it was 30 years ago? "

1969 Science Writers Conference of the ACS

" After $50 Billion spent on cancer research, the list of cancers responsive

to chemotherapy is almost

identical to what it was 25 years ago? "

(Questioning Chemotherapy by Ralph Moss, p81)

" The War on Cancer is a failure with a death rate not lower but 6% higher

in 1997 than 1970? "

(Questioning Chemotherapy by Ralph Moss)

From the book:

" World Without Cancer "

by G.

Excerpts

Chemo Statistics

The following appeared in the Los Angeles Times on August 18, 1973, under

the heading: CANCER

" CURE " LAETRILE

Helene Brown, FDA spokesperson, ... said:

... there are now 10 kinds of cancer which can be cured or controlled by

chemotherapy—the treatment of disease by drugs.

Less than a month later, while speaking at an ACS national conference

on cancer nursing,

Mrs. Brown said flatly: " Present medical knowledge makes it possible

to cure seventy

percent of. cancers, if they are detected early. "

Spokesmen for the American Cancer Society never tire of perpetuating the

myth of " proven cures. "

But they seldom look quite so foolish in the eyes of those who know

anything about true survival

statistics as they do when they speak of cures by chemotherapy.

We briefly have viewed the miserable results obtained by orthodox surgery

and radiation. However,

the record of so-called anti-cancer drugs is even worse. The primary reason

for this is that most of

them currently in use are highly poisonous, not just to cancer but to the

rest of the body as well.

Generally they are more deadly to healthy tissue than they are to the

malignant cell.

All substances can be toxic if taken in sufficient quantity. This is true

of aspirin, sugar, Laetrile, or

even water. But, unlike those, the anti-cancer drugs are poisonous, not as

a result of an overdose or

as a side-effect, but as a primary effect. In other words, their poisonous

nature is not tolerated merely

as a necessary price to pay in order to achieve some desired effect, it is

the desired effect.

These chemicals are selected because they are capable of differentiating

between types of cells and,

consequently, of poisoning some types more than others. But don’t jump to

the conclusion that they

differentiate between cancer and non-cancer cells, killing only the cancer

cells, because they do not.

The cellular poisons used in orthodox cancer therapy today cannot

distinguish between cancer and

non-cancer cells. They act instead to differentiate between cells that are

fast-growing and those that

are slow-growing or not growing at all. Cells that are actively dividing

are the targets. Consequently,

they kill, not only the cancer cells that are dividing, but also a

multitude of normal cells all over the

body that also are caught in the act of dividing.

Theoretically, those cancers that are dividing more rapidly than normal

cells will be killed before the

patient is, but it is nip and tuck all the way. In the case of a cancer

that is dividing at the same rate or

even slower than normal cells, there isn’t even a theoretical chance of

success.

In either event, poisoning the system is the objective of these drugs, and

the resulting pain and

illness often is a torment worse than the disease itself. The toxins catch

the blood cells in the act of

dividing and cause blood poisoning. The gastrointestinal system is thrown

into convulsion causing

nausea, diarrhea, loss of appetite, cramps, and progressive weakness. Hair

cells are fast-growing, so

the hair falls out during treatment. Reproductive organs are affected

causing sterility. The brain

becomes fatigued. Eyesight and hearing are impaired. Every conceivable

function is disrupted with

such agony for the patient that many of them elect to die of the cancer

rather than to continue

treatment.

It is ironic that the personnel who administer these drugs to cancer

patients take great precautions to

be sure they themselves are not exposed to them. The Handbook of Cancer

Chemotherapy, a

standard reference for medical personnel, offers this warning:

The potential risks involved in handling cytotoxic agents have become

a concern for

health care workers. The literature reports various symptoms such as

eye, membrane, and

skin irritation, as well as dizziness, nausea, and headache

experienced by health care

workers not using safe handling precautions. In addition, increased

concerns regarding

the mutagenesis and teratogenesis [deformed babies] continue to be

investigated. Many

chemotherapy agents, the alkylating agents in particular, are known to

be carcinogenic

[cancer -causing] in therapeutic doses. (Roland T. Skeel, M.D., and

Neil A. Lachant, M.D.,

Handbook of Cancer Chemotherapy; Fourth Edition (New York: Little,

Brown and

Company, 1995), p.677.)

Because these drugs are so dangerous, the Chemotherapy Handbook lists

sixteen OSHA safety

procedures for medical personnel who work around them. They include wearing

disposable masks

and gowns, eye goggles, and double latex gloves. The procedure for

disposing needles and other

equipment used with these drugs is regulated by the Environmental

Protection Agency under the

category of " hazardous waste. " Yet, these same substances are injected

directly into the

bloodstream of hapless cancer patients supposedly to cure their cancer!

Most of these drugs are described as radiomimetic, which means they mimic

or produce the same

effect as radiation. Consequently, they also suppress the immune system,

and that is one of the

reasons they help spread the cancer to other areas. But whereas X-rays

usually are directed at only

one or two locations, these chemicals do their deadly work on every cell in

the body As Dr.

has pointed out:

Both radiation therapy and attempts to " poison out " result in a

profound hostile

in-imunosuppression that greatly increases the susceptibility to

metastasis. How irrational

it would be to attempt to treat cancer immunologically and/or

physiologically, and at the

same time administer immunosuppressants in the form of radiation of

any kind,

methotrexate, 5-FU, Cytoxin, or similarly useless and dangerous

general cellular poisons.

All of these modalities, as we know, have been used to depress the

rejection phenomena

associated with organ transplantation. The entire physiological

objective in rational

cancer therapy is to increase the rejection phenomena. (Open letter to

interested doctors,

Nov., 1972; , Private Papers, op. cit.)

The view that toxic " anti-cancer " drugs usually accomplish just the

opposite of their intent is not

restricted to the advocates of Laetrile. It is a fact of life (or shall we

say death?) that has become

widely acknowledged even by those who use these drugs. Dr. Trelford,

for instance, of the

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Ohio State University Hospital

has said:

At the present time, chemotherapy of gynecological tumors does not

appear to have

increased life expectancy except in sporadic cases.... The problem of

blind chemotherapy

means not only a loss of the effect of the drugs, but also a lowering

of the patient’s

resistance to the cancer cells owing to the toxicity of these agents.

( " A Discussion of the

Results of Chemotherapylogical Cancer and the Host’s Immune Response, "

Sixth

National Cancer Conference proceedings, op. cit.)

Dr. Trelford is not alone in his observation. A report from the Southern

Research Institute, dated April

13, 1972, based upon research conducted for the National Cancer Institute,

indicated that most of the

accepted drugs in the American Cancer Society’s " proven cure~~ category

produced cancer in

laboratory animals that previously had been healthy! (NCI research contract

PH-43-68-.998.

Information contained in letter from Dean Burk to Congressman Lou Frey,

Jr., May 30,1972; ,

Private Papers, op. cit., p. 5.)

In a courageous letter to Dr. Rauscher, his boss at the National

Cancer Institute, Dr. Dean Burk

condemned the Institute’s policy of continuing to endorse these drugs when

everyone knew that

they caused cancer. He argued:

Ironically, virtually all of the chemotherapeutic anti-cancer agents

now approved by the

Food and Drug Administration for use or testing in human cancer

patients are (1) highly or

variously toxic at applied dosages; (2) markedly immunosuppressive,

that is, destructive

of the patient’s native resistance to a variety of diseases, including

cancer; and (3) usually

highly carcinogenic [cancer causing].... These now well established

facts have been

reported in numerous publications from the National Cancer Institute

itself, as well as from

throughout the United States and, indeed, the world. Furthermore, what

has just been said

of the FDA-approved anti-cancer chemotherapeutic drugs is true, though

perhaps less

conspicuously, of radiological and surgical treatments of human

cancer....

In your answer to my discussion on March 19, you readily acknowledged

that the

FDA-approved anti-cancer drugs were indeed toxic, immunosuppressive, and

carcinogenic, as indicated. But then, even in the face of the

evidence, including your own

White House statement of May 5, 1972, all pointing to the pitifully

small effectiveness of

such drugs, you went on to say quite paradoxically it seems to me, " I

think the Cancer

Chemotherapy program is one of the best program components that the

NCI has ever

had. " ... One may ask, parenthetically, surely this does not speak well

of the " other

program areas? " ...

ly, I fail to follow you here. I submit that a program and series

of the FDA-approved

compounds that yield only 5—10% " effectiveness " can scarcely be

described as

" excellent, " the more so since it represents the total production of

a thirty-year effort on

the part of all of us in the cancer therapy field. (Letter to

Rauscher, dated April 20,

1973; , Private Papers, op. cit.)

There is little evidence for long-term survival with chemotherapy. Here is

just a sampling of the

negative verdict handed down by physicians, many of whom still continue to

prescribe it:

Dr. B. Fisher, writing in the September 1968 issue of ls of Surgery,

stated:

As a result of its severe toxicity and its lack of therapeutic effect,

further use of 5-FU as an

adjuvant to breast surgery in the regimen employed is unwarranted.

( " Surgical Adjuvant

Chemotherapy in Cancer of the Breast: Results of A Decade of ative

Investigation, " ls of Surgery, 168, No.3, Sept., 1968.)

Dr. Saul A. Rosenberg, Associate Professor of Medicine and Radiology at

Stanford University School

of Medicine:

Worthwhile palliation is achieved in many patients. However, there

will be the inevitable

relapse of the malignant lymphoma, and, either because of drug

resistance or drug

intolerance, the disease will recur, requiring modifications of the

chemotherapy program

and eventually failure to control the disease process. ( " The

Indications for Chemotherapy

in the Lymphomas, " Sixth National Cancer Conference proceedings, op.

cit.)

Dr. Moertal of the Mayo Clinic:

Our most effective regimens are fraught with risks and side-effects

and practical

problems; and after this price is paid by all the patients we have

treated, only a small

fraction are rewarded with a transient period of usually incomplete

tumor regressions....

Our accepted and traditional curative efforts, therefore, yield a

failure rate of 85%.... Some

patients with gastrointestinal cancer can have very long survival with

no treatment

whatsoever. (Speech made at the National Cancer Institute Clinical

Center Auditorium,

May 18, 1972.)

Dr. D. Sullivan, Department of Cancer Research at the Lahey Clinic

Foundation:

There has been an enormous undertaking of cancer research to develop

anti-cancer

drugs for use in the management of neoplastic diseases in man.

However, progress has

been slow, and no chemical agents capable of inducing a general

curative effect on

disseminated forms of cancer have yet been developed. ( " Ambulatory

Arterial Infusion in

the Treatment of Primary and Secondary Skin Cancer, " Sixth National

Cancer Conference

proceedings, op. cit.)

If it is true that Orthodox chemotherapy is (1) toxic, (2)

immunosuppressant, (3) carcinogenic, and (4)

futile, then why would doctors continue to use it? The answer is that they

don’t know what else to

do. Patients usually are not scheduled into chemotherapy unless their

condition seems so hopeless

that the loss of life appears to be inevitable anyway. Some doctors refer

to this stage, not as therapy,

but experimentation, which, frankly, is a more honest description.

Another reason for using drugs in the treatment of cancer is that the

doctor does not like to tell the

patient there is no hope. In his own mind he knows there is none, but he

also knows that the patient

does not want to hear that and will seek another physician who will

continue some kind of treatment,

no matter how useless. So he solves the problem by continuing the treatment

himself.

In his book The Wayward Cell, Cancer, Dr. Victor s made it clear

that chemotherapy is used

primarily just to keep the patient returning for treatment and to build his

morale while he dies. But

there is more! He said:

Nevertheless, chemotherapy serves an extremely valuable role in

keeping patients

oriented toward proper medical therapy, and prevents the feeling of

being abandoned by

the physician in patients with late and hopeless cancers. Judicious

employment and

screening of potentially useful drugs may also prevent the spread of

cancer quackery.

(Victor s, The Wayward Cell, Cancer; Its Origins, Nature, and

Treatment, (Berkeley:

The University of California Press, 1972), pp. 215—16.)

Heaven forbid that anyone should forsake the nauseating, pain-racking,

cancerspreading, admittedly

ineffective " proven cures " for such " quackery " as Laetrile!

Here, at last, is revealed the true goal of much of the so-called

" educational " programs of orthodox

medicine—psychologically to condition people not to try any other forms of

therapy. That is why

they perpetuate the myth of " proven cures. "

The American Cancer Society, in its Unproven Methods of Cancer Management,

stated:

When one realizes that 1,500,000 Americans are alive today because

they went to their

doctors in time, and that the proven treatments of radiation and

surgery are responsible

for these cures, he is less likely to take a chance with a

questionable practitioner or an

unproven treatment. (Unproven Methods of Cancer Management, op. cit.,

pp.17,18)

From the book:

" World Without Cancer "

by G.

[Guest guest]

At 12:40 26.05.99 +0000, you wrote:

> I don't understand what everyone is talking about - alternative methods

>with cancer treatments? What is wrong with chemotherapy and such?

What's wrong with radiation ?

World Without Cancer

by G.

Excerpts

Let us take a look at the results and benefits of the so-called cures

obtained through surgery,

radiation, and chemotherapy.

Radiation

The rationale behind X-ray therapy is the same as with surgery. The

objective is to remove the tumor,

but to do so by burning it away rather than cutting it out. Here, also, it

is primarily the non-cancer cell

that is destroyed. The more malignant the tumor, the more resistant it is

to radio therapy. If this were

not so, then X-ray therapy would have a high degree of success—which, of

course, it does not.

If the average tumor is composed of both cancer and non-cancer cells, and

if radiation is more

destructive to non-cancer cells than to cancer cells, then it would be

logical to expect the results to

be a reduction of tumor size, but also an increase in the percentage of

malignancy. This is, in fact,

exactly what happens.

Commenting on this mechanism, Dr. explained it this way:

Radiation and/or radiomimetic poisons will reduce palpable, gross or

measurable

tumefaction. Often this reduction may amount to seventy-five percent

or more of the mass

of the growth. These agents have a selective effect—radiation and

poisons. They

selectively kill everything except the definitively neoplastic

[cancer] cells.

For example, a benign uterine myoma will usually melt away under

radiation like snow in

the sun. If there be neoplastic cells in such tumor, these will

remain. The size of the tumor

may thus be decreased by ninety percent while the relative

concentration of definitively

neoplastic cells is thereby increased by ninety percent.

As all experienced clinicians know—or at least should know— after

radiation or poisons

have reduced the gross tumefaction of the lesion the patient’s general

well-being does not

substantially improve. To the contrary, there is often an explosive or

fulminating increase

in the biological malignancy of his lesion. This is marked by the

appearance of diffuse

metastasis and a rapid deterioration in general vitality followed

shortly by death. Open

letter to interested doctors, Noc 1972; , Private papers, op.

cit.

And so we see that X-ray therapy is cursed with the same drawbacks of

surgery. But it has one

more: It actually increases the likelihood that cancer will develop in

other parts of the body!

Radiation Increases Chances of Spreading Cancer

Excessive exposure to radioactivity is an effective way to induce cancer.

This was first demonstrated

by observing the increased cancer incidence among the survivors of

Hiroshima, but it has been

corroborated by many independent studies since then. For example, a recent

headline in a

national-circulation newspaper tells us: FIND ‘ALARMING’ NUMBER OF CANCER

CASES IN PEOPLE

WHO HAD X-RAY THERAPY 20 YEARS AGO.

The Textbook of Medical Surgical Nursing, a standard reference for

Registered Nurses, is most

emphatic on this point. It says:

This is an area of public health concern because it may involve large

numbers of people

who may be exposed to low levels of radiation over a long period of

time. The classic

example is of the women employed in the early 1920’s to paint watch

and clock dials with

luminizing (radium containing) paints. Years later, bone sarcomas

resulted from the

carcinogenic effect of the radium. Similarly, leukemia occurs more

frequently in

radiologists than other physicians. Another example is the Hiroshima

survivors who have

shown the effects of low levels of radiation....

Among the most serious of the late consequences of irradiation damage

is the increased

susceptibility to malignant metaplasia and the development of cancer

at sites of earlier

irradiation. Evidence cited in support of this relationship refers to

the increased incidence

of carcinoma of skin, bone, and lung after latent periods of 20 years

and longer following

irradiation of those sites. Further support has been adduced from the

relatively high

incidence of carcinoma of the thyroid 7 years and longer following

low-dosage irradiation

of the thymus in childhood, and from the increased incidence of

leukemia following total

body irradiation at any age. (Brunner, Emerson, Ferguson, and Doris

Suddarth, Textbook

of Medical-Surgical Nursing, (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Co., 1970)

2nd Edition, p. 198.)

In 1971, a research team at the University of Buffalo, under the direction

of Dr. W. Gibson,

reported that less than a dozen routine medical X-rays to the same part of

the body increases the risk

of leukemia in males by at least sixty percent. Other scientists have

become increasingly concerned

about the growing American infatuation with X-rays and have urged a stop to

the madness, even

calling for an end to the mobile chest X-ray units for the detection of TB.

And these " routine " X-rays

are harmlessly mild compared to the intense radiation beamed into the

bodies of cancer patients

today.

X-rays induce cancer because of at least two factors. First, they do

physical damage to the body

which triggers the production of trophoblast cells as part of the healing

process. Second, they

weaken or destroy the production if white blood cells which, as we have

seen, constitute the

immunological defense mechanism, the body's front-line defense against

cancer.

Now to the question of statistics. Again we find that, on the average,

there is little or no solid

evidence that radiation actually improves the patient’s chances for

survival. The National Surgical

Adjuvant Breast Project, previously mentioned in connection with surgery,

also conducted studies

on the effect of irradiation, and here is a summary of their findings:

From the data available it would seem that the use of post-operative

irradiation has

provided no discernible advantage to patients so treated in tenns of

increasing the

proportion who were free of disease for as long as five years.

(Fisher, B., et. al.,

" Postoperative Radiotherapy in the Treatment of Breast Cancer; Results

of the NSAPP

Clinical Trial, " ls of Surgery, 172, No.4, Od. 1970.)

This is an embarrassingly difficult fact for a radiologist to face, for it

means, quite literally, that there is

little justification for his existence in the medical fraternity. If he

were to admit publicly what he knows

privately, a guy could talk himself right out of a job! Consequently, one

does not expect to hear these

facts being discussed by radiologists or those whose livelihood depends on

the construction, sale,

installation, use, or maintenance of the multi-million-dollar linear

accelerators. It comes as a pleasant

surprise, therefore, to hear these truths spoken frankly and openly by

three well known radiologists

sharing the same platform at the same medical convention. They were

Powers, M.D., Director

of the Division of Radiation Therapy at the Washington University School of

Medicine, Rubin,

M.D., Chief of the Division of Radiotherapy at the University of Rochester

Medical School, and Vera

s, M.D., of the Princess Margaret Hospital in Toronto, Canada. Dr.

Powers stated:

Although preoperative and postoperative radiation therapy have been

used extensively

and for decades, it is still not possible to prove unequivocal

clinical benefit from this

combined treatment.... Even if the rate of cure does improve with a

combination of

radiation and therapy, it is necessary to establish the cost in

increased morbidity which

may occur in patients without favorable response to the additional

therapy. ( " Preoperative

and Postoperative Radiation Therapy for Cancer, " speech delivered to

the Sixth National

Cancer Conference, sponsored by the American Cancer Society and the

National Cancer

Institute, Denver, Colorado, Sept. 18—20, 1968.)

Radiation and Heart Attacks

What Dr. Powers means when he speaks of " increased morbidity " is that

radiation treatments make

people ill. In a study at Oxford University dealing with breast cancer, it

was found that many women

who received radiation died of heart attacks because their hearts had been

weakened by the

treatment. (Breast Cancer Update/Q & A, by Ridgely Ochs, Newsday, December

19, 1995, p. B23.)

Radiation also weakens the immune system which can lead to death from

secondary causes such as

pneumonia or other internal infections. Many patients whose death

certificates state heart failure or

pulmonary pneumonia or respiratory failure really die from cancer—or, to be

more exact—from their

cancer treatment. This is another reason that cancer statistics—based as

they are on data from death

certificates—conceal the truth about the failure of orthodox cancer therapy.

Effect of Radiation On Survival

At the medical convention of radiologists previously mentioned, Dr.

Rubin reviewed the

cancer-survival statistics published in the Journal of the’ American

Medical Association. Then he

concluded:

The clinical evidence and statistical data in numerous reviews are

cited to illustrate that no

increase in survival has been achieved by the addition of irradiation.

To which Dr. s added:

In carcinoma of the breast, the mortality rate still parallels the

incidence rate, thus proving

that there has been no true improvement in the successful treatment of

the disease over

the past thirty years, even though there has been technical

improvement in both surgery

and radiotherapy during that time.

ACS Statistics

In spite of the almost universal experience of physicians to the contrary,

the American Cancer

Society still prattles to the public that their statistics show a higher

recovery rate for treated patients

as compared to untreated patients. After all, if this were not the case,

why on earth would anyone

spend the money or undergo the pain and disfigurement associated with these

orthodox

treatments? But how can they get away with such outright lies?

The answer is that they are not really lying—just bending the truth a

little. In other words, they merely

adjust the method of gathering and evaluating statistics so as to guarantee

the desired results. In the

words of Dr. Hardin :

Evaluation of the clinical response of cancer to treatment by surgery

and radiation,

separately or in combination, leads to the following findings:

The evidence for greater survival of treated groups in comparison with

untreated is biased

by the method of defining the groups. All reported studies pick up

cases at the time of

origin of the disease and follow them to death or end of the study

interval. If persons in the

untreated or central group die at any time in the study interval, they

are reported as deaths

in the control group. In the treated group, however, deaths which

occur before completion

of the treatment are rejected from the data, since these patients do

not then meet the

criteria established by definition of the term " treated. " The longer

it takes for completion of

the treatment, as in multiple step therapy, for example, the worse the

error....

With this effect stripped out, the common malignancies show a

remarkably similar rate of

demise, whether treated or untreated. (, " A Report on Cancer, "

op. cit.)

But there is far more to it than that. Such statistical error is

significant, but it is doubtful if it could

account for the American Cancer Society’s favorite claim that " there are on

record a million and a half

people cured of cancer through the efforts of the medical profession and

the American Cancer

Society with the help of the FDA. " (Letter from Mrs. Glenn E. Baker,

Executive Director, Southern

District, ACS, addressed to Mr. T.G. Kent, reprinted in Cancer News

Journal, Jan./Feb., 1972, p.22.)

The answer lies in the fact that there are some forms of cancer, such as

skin cancer, that respond

very well to treatment. In fact, often they are arrested or disappear even

without treatment. Seldom

are they fatal. But they affect large numbers of people— enough to change

the statistical tabulations

drastically. In the beginning, skin cancers were not included in the

national tabulations. Also, in

those days, very few people sought medical treatment for their skin

disorders, preferring to treat

them with home remedies, many of which, incidentally seem to have worked

just as well as some of

the more scientifically acceptable techniques today.

At any rate, as doctors became more plentiful, as people became more

affluent and able to seek out

professional medical help, and as the old-time remedies increasingly fell

into disrepute, the number

of reported skin cancers gradually increased until it is now listed by the

ACS as a " major site. " So, all

they had to do to produce most of those million-and-a-half " cures, " was to

change their statistics to

include skin cancers—presto-chan go!

As Dr. Hardin revealed:

Beginning in 1940, through redefinition of terms, various questionable

grades of

malignancy were classed as cancer. After that date, the proportion of

" cancer " cures

having " normal " life expectancy increased rapidly, corresponding to

the fraction of

questionable diagnoses included. (, " A Report on Cancer, " op.cit.)

The American Cancer Society claims that cancer patients are now surviving

longer, thanks to

orthodox therapy. In truth, however, people are not living longer after

they get cancer; they are living

longer after they are diagnosed with cancer. The trick is that, with modern

diagnostic techniques, it is

possible to identify cancer at an earlier stage than before. So the time

between diagnosis and death

is longer, but the length of life itself has not been increased at all.

( N. Proctor, Cancer Wars:

How Politics Shapes What We Know and Don’t Know About Cancer (New York:

Basic Books, 1995),

p. 4.) This is merely another statistical deception.

When X-ray therapy is used, the body’s white blood cell count is reduced

which leaves the patient

susceptible to infections and other diseases as well. It is common for such

patients to succumb to

pneumonia, for instance, rather than cancer. And, as stated previously,

that is what appears on the

death certificate—as well as in the statistics. As Dr. has

observed:

I have seen patients who have been paralyzed by cobalt spine

radiation, and after vitamin

treatment their HCG test is faintly positive. We got their cancer, but

the radiogenic

manipulation is such that they can’t walk.... It’s the cobalt that

will kill, not the cancer.

(Letter from , M.D., to G. , dated Dec.

2, 1972; , Private

Papers, op. cit.)

If the patient is strong enough or lucky enough to survive the radiation,

then he still faces a closed

door. As with all forms of currently popular treatments, once the cancer

has metastasized to a

second location, there is practically no chance that the patient will live.

So, in addition to an almost

zero survival value, radio therapy has the extra distinction of also

spreading the very cancer it is

supposed to combat.

One of the most publicized claims by The American Cancer Society is that

early diagnosis and

treatment increases the chance of survival. This is one of those slogans

that drives millions of

people into their doctors’ offices for that mystical experience called the

annual checkup. " A check

and a checkup " may be an effective stimulus for revenue to the cancer

industry but its medical value

is not as proven as the hype would suggest. As Dr. Hardin stated

emphatically:

In the matter of duration of malignant tumors before treatment, no

studies have

established the much talked about relationship between early detection

and favorable

survival after treatment.... Serious attempts to relate prompt

treatment with chance of cure

have been unsuccessful. In some types of cancer, the opposite of the

expect~d

association of short duration of symptoms with a high chance of being

" cured " has been

observed. A long duration of symptoms before treatment in a few

cancers of the breast

and cervix is associated with longer than usual survival.... Neither

the timing nor the extent

of treatment of the true malignancies has appreciably altered the

average course of the

disease. The possibility exists that treatment makes the average

situation worse. (.

" A Report on Cancer. " op.cit)

In view of all this, it is exasperating to find spokesmen for orthodox

medicine continually warning the

public against using Laetrile on the grounds that it will prevent cancer

patients from benefiting from

" proven " cures. The pronouncement by Dr. Ralph Weilerstein of the

California Department of Public

Health cited at the opening of this chapter is typical. But Dr. Weilerstein

is vulnerable on two points.

First, it is very rare to find any patient seeking Laetrile therapy who

hasn’t already been subjected to

the so-called " modern curative methods " of surgery and radiation. In fact,

most of them have been

pronounced hopeless after these methods have failed, and it is only then

that these people turn to

vitamin therapy as a last resort. So Dr. Weilerstein has set up a straw-man

objection on that score.

But, more important than that is the fact that the Weilersteinian

treatments simply do not work.

Battling as a lone warrior within the enemy stronghold, Dr. Dean Burk of

the National Cancer Institute

repeatedly has laid it on the line. In a letter to his boss, Dr.

Rauscher, he said:

In spite of the foregoing evidence,.., officials of the American

Cancer Society and even of

the National Cancer Institute, have continued to set forth to the

public that alzoct one in

every four cancer cases is now " cured " or " controlled, " but seldom if

ever backed up with

the requisite statistical or epidemiological support for such a

statement to be scientifically

meaningful, however effective for fund gathering. Such a statement is

highly misleading,

since it hides the fact that, with systemic or metastatic cancers, the

actual rate of control in

terms of the conventional five-year survival is scarcely more than one

in twenty….(Letter

from Dean Burk to Rauscher, , Private Papers, op. cit.,

p3.)

One may well ask Dr. Weilerstein where are all the modem curative methods

to which he, the

California Cancer Advisory Council, and indeed so many administrators so

glibly refer?... No,

disseminated cancer, in its various forms and kinds remains, by and large,

as " incurable " as at the

time of the Kefauver Amendment ten years ago—Dr. Weilerstein or no Dr.

Weilerstein, FDA or no

FDA, ACS or no ACS, AMA or no AMA, NCI or no NCI. (Letter from Dean Burk to

Congressman Frey;

, Private Papers, op. cit., p5.)

The statistics of the ACS are fascinating to study. They constitute page

after page of detailed tables

and complex charts telling about percentages of cancer by location, sex,

age, and geography But

when it comes to hard numbers about their so-called " proven cures, " there

is nothing. The only

" statistic " one can get is their unsupported statement: " One out of three

patients is being saved

today as against one out of five a generation ago. " This may or may not be

true, depending on one’s

definition of the word saved. But even if we do not challenge it, we must

keep in mind that there also

is a correspondingly larger gain in the number of those who are getting

cancer. Why is that?

Here is the official explanation:

Major factors are the increasing age and size of the population.

Science has conquered

many diseases, and the average life span of Americans has been

extended. Longer life

brings man to the age in which cancer most often strikes—from the

fifth decade on.

All of which sounds plausible—until one examines the facts:

First, the increasing size of the population has nothing to do with

it. The statistics of " one

out of three " and " one out of five " are proportional rather than

numerical. They represent

ratios that apply regardless of the population size. They cannot

explain the increasing

cancer rate.

Second, the average life expectancy of the population has been

extended less than three

years between 1980 to 1996. That could not possibly account for the

drastic increase of

the cancer death rate within that time.

And third, increasing age need not be a factor, anyway — as the

cancer-free Hunzakuts

and Abkhazians prove quite conclusively.

For a brief moment in 1986, the clouds of propaganda parted and a sun-ray

of truth broke through

into the medical media. The New England Journal of Medicine published a

report by C. Bailar III

and Elaine M. . Dr. Bailar was with the Department of Biostatistics at

Harvard School of Public

Health; Dr. was with the University of Iowa Medical Center. Their

report was brutal in its

honesty:

Some measures of efforts to control cancer appear to show substantial

progress, some show

substantial losses, and some show little change. By making deliberate

choices among these

measures, one can convey any impression from overwhelming success against

cancer to disaster.

Our choice for the single best measure of progress against cancer is the

mortality rate for all forms of

cancer combined, age adjusted to the U.S. 1980 standard. This measure

removes the effects of

changes in the size and age composition of the population, prevents the

selective reporting of data

to support particular views, minimizes the effects of changes in diagnostic

criteria related to recent

advances in screening and detection, and directly measures the outcome of

greatest

concern—death....

Age-adjusted mortality rates have shown a slow and steady increase

over several

decades, and there is no evidence of a recent downward trend. In this

clinical sense we

are losing the war against cancer.... The main conclusion we draw is

that some 35 years of

intense effort focused on improving treatment must be judged a

qualified failure.

( " Progress Against Cancer? " , New England Journal of Medicine, May 8,

1986, p. 1231.)

It is clear that the American Cancer Society—or at least someone very high

within it—is trying to give

the American people a good old-fashioned snow job. The truth of the matter

is—ACS statistics

notwithstanding—orthodox medicine simply does not have " proven cancer

cures, " and what it does

have is pitifully inadequate considering the prestige it enjoys, the money

it collects, and the snobbish

scorn it heaps upon those who do not wish to subscribe to its treatments.

January 22, 1998 -- Radiation treatment for breast cancer raises

slightly a

woman's long-term risk for esophageal cancer, according to a study by

epidemiologists at Columbia-Presbyterian Medical Center in the ls of

Internal Medicine. The study was conducted by examining the records of

more

than 220,000 breast cancer patients diagnosed between 1973 and 1993. The

group included both patients who received radiation therapy and those who

did not. Ten or more years after diagnosis, irradiated patients were

roughly

four to five times more likely to develop esophageal cancer than

non-irradiated patients or women in the general population, according to

Ahsan and his co-investigator, Alfred Neugut, MD, PhD, associate

professor

of clinical medicine and public health at Columbia-Presbyterian. This

is the

first study to link radiation therapy for breast cancer with an increased

risk for esophageal cancer. http://www.pslgroup.com/dg/51a42.htm

" All authorities agree that radiation therapy does not improve the survival

of patients with breast cancer. " --Dr A. , M.D.

http://www.texascancercenter.com/

Fibrocystic Breast Disease by M. Lark, M.D.

http://www.healthy.net/library/books/lark/fcbdises.htm

The Prevention and Complementary Treatment of Breast Cancer1996

Schachter, M.D., P.A.

http://www.healthy.net/library/articles/schacter/breast.d.htm

Dr Schachter

Preventing Breast Cancer 1996 Judyth Reichenberg-Ullman, N.D., M.S.W. and

Ullman, N.D.

http://www.healthy.net/library/articles/rbullman/brcancer.htm

Preventing Breast Cancer, The story of a Major, Proven, Preventable Cause of

This Disease by Dr Gofman, M.D., Ph.D.

http://www.ratical.com/radiation/CNR/PBC/

http://www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/PBC/mammography.html

http://www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/PBC/Overview.html

REVISITING ACCEPTED WISDOM IN THE MANAGEMENT OF BREAST CANCER Harriet

Beinfield, LAc, and Malcolm S Beinfield, MD, FACS

http://www.healthonline.com/scripts/pagesrv.exe?ALTT_0997_ARTICLE

[Guest guest]

At 11:37 26.05.99 -0700, you wrote:

" We trust our doctor, but the disease we are battling does not have

positive stats; we are survivors because we believe we can help ourselves

fight the demon PC!!

Lori (Matt, husband/PC dx 12/3/98) "

Hi Lori,

I suppose PC means Prostate Cancer. If you ment Pancreatic C, sorry for

mistake.

I do not know if you already did,

but if you did not,

I recommend you reading a book " Prostate Health in 90 Days " .

On this site, you can find and print 2 large chapters from that book :

http://www.prostate90.com

Here is one interesting PC story:

-----Original Message-----

From: Lars Bengtsson, LB SaxService AB

[mailto:lars.bengtsson@...]

Sent: Friday, May 07, 1999 1:14 PM

This is my story:

About mid-august 96 I was heavily affected by rheumatism and by chance I

stumbled on a man, 83 years old, who had a kind of " holliday resort " where

he taught people whith illnesses to eat properly, and thats just about what

he does.

He gave me a bowel-rinse and a soda bath to clean up the skin, one of the

larger organs! Anyway, whith a diet consisting only of carotjuice and

bicarbonate of soda I started getting better at once, four months later I

could let go of all medicines!

At the same time I was there four elderly men were visiting him, not for

" treatment " , but just to pay him a visit. They had all survived and

defeated cancer in their prostate gland, no radiation or chemotherapy. A

woman from Stockholm, Gudrun Pettersson, had just arrived to step up her

self-treatment of her pancreatic cancer. She told me this: In april 96 she

had been diagnosed whith cancer an was offered immediate surgery. Luckily

she had read a book by JOSEF OSTLUND from Nyhamnslage. She had a very good

friend whom had done just the surgery she had been offered, that friend was

barly alive and had really not much to look forward to. SO GUDRUN REFUSED!!

WELL AWARE OF A CERTAIN DEATH IF SHE BETTED THE WRONG HORSE!!!! SHE

DIDN´T: IN FIVE WEEKS ALL HER PAIN WAS GONE AND HER STOMACH HAD

" DISAPPERED " (It was the size of a football when she begun her treatment!)

Today she is still a stict vegan, alive and kicking and feeling like she

was twenty again.

Please read this concerning Laetrile (B-17)!

You will most probably increase Your chanses radically to get well and free

from cancer by doing four simple things:

1. Increase Your intake of RAW vegetables as much as possible,

2. start Your day with a teaspoon of bicarbonate soda in 0.5 ltrs of water

+ Minerals (i.e. especially Magnesium, Potassium and Calcium) and DON´T

forget Your carotjuice!!!

+Ample of water during the day (should be tapped in the evening and left

out of the fridge in a open container so possible traces of clorine and

fluoride can be gased of)!!!

3. Avoid fruit, potatoes, rice, bread and pasta, (sugar is perfect food for

a cancercell !!!!!) cheese, milk, egg, coffe and meat. Use fat fish

instead if You must but Only very sparse!!

4. and most important: every day You MUST make what is known as

paradise-slush: A handfull (one dl) of INDIAN BEANS (Mung beans) is grown

every day, on the third day You take the sprouts and put them in a mixer

together whith a little (sparse) water, then dilute it to apr.0.5 ltrs

covering its taste whith some juice. The high content of Laetrile (A

nitrosilosid) will cause the cancercells to produce free cyanide internally

and they die rapidly!! Ordinary cells are protected by rhodenase, a

substance lacking in cancercells of all types.

I have more material on people that have beaten servere forms of cancer

without operations or radiation, amongst them a stadium IVa Hodkins who was

tested by his doctors after two months on paradise-slush, they couldn´t

find any trace of his disease!. It´s in swedish and I havn´t translated it

yet ( I will after this ).Typicaly they all got positive feedback from this

diet in as little as 1-3 weeks. Please try it!!

p.s.

I highly recomend You to Take a look at www.lifeforce.iinet.net.au !!

On that site You can read much more of the things I am talking about. ROSS

TAYLOR is an Australian Top-notch who one day was stuck by lightning when

he was told he had cancer, an not just any cancer. It was secondary

malignant melanoma, one of the big killers. He survived and wrote a book

about his experiences. It gives hope and is full of valuable tips, it´s

easy to read, cheap and all the proceeds goes to the Cancer Support

Association in Perth: csa@... The ISBN nr for the book

is: 0 646 30875 0, i guess it can be ordered whith help of that number if

You pass the tip on to someone who doesn´t have internet. BUY IT!

I might add that keeping a diet that is very heavy on RAW vegetables and

low in protein probably keeps anyone healthy as long as you don´t carry a

burden of " very bad genes " or an extremely polluted environment.

Also: Look at http://home.sol.no/~dusan/cancerpage.html

Respectfully, Lars Bengtsson, LOMMA, SWEDEN

lars.bengtsson@...

I should mention that f Ostlund heavily advocates a vegan lifestyle,

and uses very good arguments!!!

It should rightly be added to the diet I suggest in my mail but I´ve found

it merely turns people away and, just maybe, they would lose out on this

possibility!!

It´s easy to argue however, that what You Yourself put into Your body (app.

1.5 kg´s a day, water not included), is of far greater consequense to Your

health then almost any medicines or any environmental factors.

Mr Ostlund, of course, have many more who can tell about good results!

Yours,

Lars B

[Guest guest]

Hi! Sorry for the confusion, my husband Matt has pancreatic cancer, but I

appreciate all info!!! Lori

Re: [ ] Alternative methods? I don't get it.

>From: Dusan Stojkovic <dusan@...>

>

>At 11:37 26.05.99 -0700, you wrote:

>

> " We trust our doctor, but the disease we are battling does not have

>positive stats; we are survivors because we believe we can help ourselves

>fight the demon PC!!

>Lori (Matt, husband/PC dx 12/3/98) "

>

[Guest guest]

--- Dusan Stojkovic <dusan@...> wrote:

If it is true that Orthodox chemotherapy is (1)toxic, (2)

immunosuppressant, (3) carcinogenic, and (4)futile, then why

would doctors continue to useit? The answer is that they don’t

know what else to do. Patients usually are not scheduled into

chemotherapy unless their condition seems so hopeless that the

loss of life appears to be inevitable anyway. Some doctors refer

to this stage, not as therapy, but experimentation, which,

frankly, is a more honest description.

Nowadays, patients are scheduled for chemotherapy whether their

situation is hopeless or not. After my breast cancer surgery,

they wanted to do chemo, EVEN THOUGH THEY COULDN'T FIND ANY SIGN

OF CANCER IN MY BODY!!

But it was standard " treatment. " When I received the information

about the side effects of the various drugs, (permanent heart

damage, permanent liver damage, hair loss - possibly permanent,

suppressed immune system, susceptibility to opportunistic

pathogens, etc.,) I decided to take my chances with alternative

therapies and let nature take its course.

Now if I were in 's mother's situation, where chemo has

been shown to help with that particular cancer, I'm not sure what

I would have done. But with MY situation (each one different), I

knew chemo was not an alternative.

===

Irene K.

Out of my mind...Back in five minutes.

vegasrenie@...

_________________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

>

>Now if I were in 's mother's situation, where chemo has

>been shown to help with that particular cancer, I'm not sure what

>I would have done. But with MY situation (each one different), I

>knew chemo was not an alternative.

From my experience with Leukemia,

It is one of the easily curable cancer. Takes shortest time to cure. There

is no tumor.

Bu changing the diet, you are directly changing blood quality, and curing

leukemia.

Sometimes only better diet is enough, but cleansing certainly speeds up

healing.

I believe that it is only our body and mind that cure cancer.

When we know that, it is easy to understand why Chemo sometimes works for

leukemia.

Being the easiest cancer to cure, sometimes is enough that person believe

that he/she will be cured, and that helps.

But, I think tha those same people would be cured anyway, even without

treatment, just if they would be drinking pure water and been told that

that is chemo.

People who receive chemo have been told that that it is cure.

If they believe in it, they have a great chances to be cured.

Using cure , and not believing in it, is like using only small percentage

of the dose.

That is the main reason why people die of cancer.

(Yes, I said die of cancer. Actually, majority of treated people does not

die of cancer, by die of treatment and complications caused by the

treatment (Chemo, Radiation,..) )

But, there are also people who die of cancer.

Mainly because they believe that they are suffering of an incurable disease

and that every cure is just another experiment that is not going to work.

With that kind of attitude, it is hard to cure cancer.

Majority of people who survive cancer and chemo, are those who believe in it.

I believe that those people would also survive if not doing anything, just

if they would be able to believe that not doing anything is as good as

chemo or radiation.

Power of our mind is great.

Unfortunately, I think that there is no single person who is more helpd

then harmed with chemo or radiation.

The reason why some of them anyway get cured is because they believe in it,

and power of theeir belif was stronger then side efects of chemo or

radiation.

Dusan Stojkovic

Norway

[Guest guest]

At 13:05 26.05.99 -0700, you wrote:

>

>

>

>--- Dusan Stojkovic <dusan@...> wrote:

>>If it is true that Orthodox chemotherapy is (1)toxic, (2)

>>immunosuppressant, (3) carcinogenic, and (4)futile, then why

>>would doctors continue to useit? The answer is that they don’t

>>know what else to do. Patients usually are not scheduled into

>>chemotherapy unless their condition seems so hopeless that the

>>loss of life appears to be inevitable anyway. Some doctors refer

>>to this stage, not as therapy, but experimentation, which,

>>frankly, is a more honest description.

>>

>>

>From: " I. King " <vegasrenie@...>

>Nowadays, patients are scheduled for chemotherapy whether their

>situation is hopeless or not. After my breast cancer surgery,

>they wanted to do chemo, EVEN THOUGH THEY COULDN'T FIND ANY SIGN

>OF CANCER IN MY BODY!!

>

Because, they earn a great amount of money by giving you chemo.

Personal interest is often hidden behind " prevention " .

And they are not doing that because they want to bad. They believe in it.

Your doctor believe in chemo as prevention. He believe in things that in

the same time brings money. Why not ?

Don't forget that your doctor have to pay a lot of money for his large

house, his Mercedes, his son's Porche, his wife's Mercedes, ex wifes and

their son's .....

OK, this is just a joke and may not be true in every case , BUT.... ?

Dusan

[Guest guest]

Very true for me Dusan. Thanks.

At 10:36 PM 5/26/99 +0200, you wrote:

>From: Dusan Stojkovic <dusan@...>

>

>>

>>Now if I were in 's mother's situation, where chemo has

>>been shown to help with that particular cancer, I'm not sure what

>>I would have done. But with MY situation (each one different), I

>>knew chemo was not an alternative.

>

>

>

>

>

>>From my experience with Leukemia,

>

>It is one of the easily curable cancer. Takes shortest time to cure. There

>is no tumor.

>Bu changing the diet, you are directly changing blood quality, and curing

>leukemia.

>

>

>Sometimes only better diet is enough, but cleansing certainly speeds up

>healing.

>

>

>

>I believe that it is only our body and mind that cure cancer.

>

>

>When we know that, it is easy to understand why Chemo sometimes works for

>leukemia.

>

>

>

>Being the easiest cancer to cure, sometimes is enough that person believe

>that he/she will be cured, and that helps.

>

>

>

>But, I think tha those same people would be cured anyway, even without

>treatment, just if they would be drinking pure water and been told that

>that is chemo.

>

>

>

>People who receive chemo have been told that that it is cure.

>

>If they believe in it, they have a great chances to be cured.

>

>

>Using cure , and not believing in it, is like using only small percentage

>of the dose.

>

>

>That is the main reason why people die of cancer.

>(Yes, I said die of cancer. Actually, majority of treated people does not

>die of cancer, by die of treatment and complications caused by the

>treatment (Chemo, Radiation,..) )

>

>

>

>But, there are also people who die of cancer.

>

>Mainly because they believe that they are suffering of an incurable disease

>and that every cure is just another experiment that is not going to work.

>With that kind of attitude, it is hard to cure cancer.

>

>

>Majority of people who survive cancer and chemo, are those who believe in it.

>

>

>I believe that those people would also survive if not doing anything, just

>if they would be able to believe that not doing anything is as good as

>chemo or radiation.

>

>

>Power of our mind is great.

>

>

>

>

>Unfortunately, I think that there is no single person who is more helpd

>then harmed with chemo or radiation.

>

>

>

>The reason why some of them anyway get cured is because they believe in it,

>and power of theeir belif was stronger then side efects of chemo or

>radiation.

>

>

>Dusan Stojkovic

>Norway

>

>

>

>

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

>Campaign 2000 is here!

>

>Discuss your thoughts; get informed at ONElist. See our homepage.

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

>-List Archives:

>/archives.cgi/

>Web Sites:

>http://home.sol.no/~dusan/cancerpage.html

>http://www.geocities.com/~mycleanse/

>http://www.geocities.com/HotSprings/1158

>

>By joining the list you agree to hold yourself FULLY responsible FOR

yourself!

>

>To unsubscribe from this list, send an empty message to:

> -unsubscribeonelist

>

>To change status from normal to digest , send an empty message to:

> -digestonelist

>

>To change status from digest to normal, send an empty message to:

> -normalonelist

>

>To subscribe again to the list, send an empty message to:

> -subscribeonelist

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

>>From: " I. King " <vegasrenie@...>

>

>>Nowadays, patients are scheduled for chemotherapy whether their

>>situation is hopeless or not. After my breast cancer surgery,

>>they wanted to do chemo, EVEN THOUGH THEY COULDN'T FIND ANY SIGN

>>OF CANCER IN MY BODY!!

Why do Doctors insist on Chemo ?

Are they bad people who are only thinking about money, or do they care for

their patients ?

I beleve that they are good people, and that they are offering the only

scientific cure that thay know about.

When your doctor tells you that you should take radiation or chemo, he

realy believe that it is going to help you and that it may cure your cancer.

He has got information that treatment (Chemo and Rad.) works. He has read

reports from differents studies that have been done that are scientific

proof that those therapies works.

So, if that is true, why do so many people die of cancer or of treatment?

The answer is given in the books " The Cancer Industry " By Ralph Moss, and

in the book " World Without Cancer " .

Your doctor have received fals information !

In order to prove that some drug or radiation technology works, some people

have been able to change some facts, and to hide some statistics, and to

present those treatments as better then the treatment really is.

It is multibilion industry, and things happen. Some people do it for money,

some people do it to save their life. In the end, there are fals results

presented in some studies.

So, your doctor who only trust to science, and in the results obtained with

double-blinde studies, is actually blindly trusting to the science and

offering the only weapon science has : Chemo nad Radiation.

So, he don't want to believe in the facts that he can see, fact that

patiens are suffering and dying, he wants to believe that his cure works.

Some people does survive more then 5 years,and those people give him hope.

After 10 years of using some treatment, your doctor finaly realize that it

doesn't work as it should, but pharmaceutical companies have alredy

developed new drug, or new radiation technology, and, your doctor is now

reading results obtained with some new double-blind studies.

And your doctor, who hates this non-scientific world of alternative

medicine, he realize that he again must rely on the only thing that science

can offer to him, double-blinde chemo and radiation.

And he is continuing living in his double-blind world.

The question is:

Do you want to live in this double-blind world, full of suffering, and

pain, or you want to be cured and healthy.

The only way to get cured without suffering is to take responsiblity for

your own health an realize that cure for cancer is inside of you.

Get back your eyes ! Being blind is not realy funn.

Dusan Stojkovic

Norway

[Guest guest]

,

There is nothing wrong with chemo unless you don't like poison put into your

veins. You may not die of the cancer but the side effects of the chemo

destroy other things like your immune system. Honestly, there are a few

cancers that chemo work for your Mom's may have been one. I feel Dr. are too

quick to throw the chemo bombs at us, as if we were all the same. I chose

after one chemo treatment to go natural, and time will tell the results but I

am cancer free at this point. I will keep everyone posted on progress if

interested. I have made major changes in my life instead of chemo and

radiation. This is with mostly the help of God I might add.

Hopes this helps.

JA

[Guest guest]

There is another book - An Alternative Medicine Definitive Guide To Cancer.

It is by Dr. Cowden, Dr. Diamond and Burton Goldburg. The WHOLE book (1200

plus pages) is on cancer.

----Original Message Follows----

From: Jab44419@...

Reply- onelist

onelist

Subject: Re: [ ] Alternative methods? I don't get it.

Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 11:34:55 EDT

From: Jab44419@...

Diane,

Please go get or borrow the book by Dr. Cowden " Definitive Guide to Cancer "

It is a thick book with 30 or so Dr. who practice natural medicine all over

the states and Mexico. One section is on cancer and you need to read it.

ja

------------------------------------------------------------------------

What do lizards and rock music have in common?

They both have communities at ONElist. Find yours today!

------------------------------------------------------------------------

-List Archives:

/archives.cgi/

Web Sites:

http://home.sol.no/~dusan/cancerpage.html

http://www.geocities.com/~mycleanse/

http://www.geocities.com/HotSprings/1158

By joining the list you agree to hold yourself FULLY responsible FOR

yourself!

To unsubscribe from this list, send an empty message to:

-unsubscribeonelist

To change status from normal to digest , send an empty message to:

-digestonelist

To change status from digest to normal, send an empty message to:

-normalonelist

To subscribe again to the list, send an empty message to:

-subscribeonelist

_______________________________________________________________

Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com

[Guest guest]

Diane,

Please go get or borrow the book by Dr. Cowden " Definitive Guide to Cancer "

It is a thick book with 30 or so Dr. who practice natural medicine all over

the states and Mexico. One section is on cancer and you need to read it.

ja

[Guest guest]

Diane,

Have you had blood work done? like the as27.29 or amass? If not I would

highly recommend it as a baseline. Whatever you do, you can gauge it by

watching these tests in future. I did not know about them in time to test

prior to surgery, I do them each 2 months now.

ja

[Guest guest]

Wonderful for me to hear how great you are doing JA. Doc recommended

surgery and 6 weeks of radiation to me yesterday, and possibly chemo, but

I'm taking some time to make changes, and think, and heal, and on. I feel

great!

I'll keep you in my prayers.

Blessings,

Diane

At 12:15 AM 5/27/99 EDT, you wrote:

>From: Jab44419@...

>

>,

>There is nothing wrong with chemo unless you don't like poison put into your

>veins. You may not die of the cancer but the side effects of the chemo

>destroy other things like your immune system. Honestly, there are a few

>cancers that chemo work for your Mom's may have been one. I feel Dr. are

too

>quick to throw the chemo bombs at us, as if we were all the same. I chose

>after one chemo treatment to go natural, and time will tell the results

but I

>am cancer free at this point. I will keep everyone posted on progress if

>interested. I have made major changes in my life instead of chemo and

>radiation. This is with mostly the help of God I might add.

>Hopes this helps.

>JA

>

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

>With more than 17 million e-mails exchanged daily...

>

>...ONElist is THE place where the world talks!

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

>-List Archives:

>/archives.cgi/

>Web Sites:

>http://home.sol.no/~dusan/cancerpage.html

>http://www.geocities.com/~mycleanse/

>http://www.geocities.com/HotSprings/1158

>

>By joining the list you agree to hold yourself FULLY responsible FOR

yourself!

>

>To unsubscribe from this list, send an empty message to:

> -unsubscribeonelist

>

>To change status from normal to digest , send an empty message to:

> -digestonelist

>

>To change status from digest to normal, send an empty message to:

> -normalonelist

>

>To subscribe again to the list, send an empty message to:

> -subscribeonelist

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Lori: and in reply to Healther's question. Please read: Dr. Ralph

Moss's books. They can be had at any bookstore library etc. He also is

mentioned in Dusan Stojkovic's website.

This is Carol whose husband just had pancreatic tumor removed 4/9.

I was in favor of pursuing alternative cures especially since his tumor was

totally confined to one area. But Carl felt strongly the chemo/radiation

would lessen his chances of a recurrence (as the surgeon, primary physician

and oncologist advised). AND SO I'M SUPPORTING HIM 1000%. It's hard to

make a life and death decision for someone (even if it is your spouse) and

unlike the AMA, FDA AND medical professionals....I'M NOT ALWAYS RIGHT!!!!!!!

I'm banking on his VERY positive attitude + strict anti cancer diet,

anti-oxident supplements, exercise program, etc. to carry him thru.

It is very scary when it is well known that chemo/rad can do much harm and

has a high rate of failure. But, all Drs will reinforce over and over with

the same " catch phrases " that the benefits outweigh the risks. (They

couldn't be more in step if they were the Radio City Rockettes.)

Further, I've gotten a clear message that most drs are conscientious but

their hands are tied. I've also had more than one signal that drs seem to

be MORE AFRAID OF GETTING INTO TROUBLE WITH THE AMA AND/OR THEIR

PRESTIGIOUS COLLEAGUES than potential lawsuits from patients. THIS

EXTREMELY POWERFUL AND WELL-FUNDED COMBINATION will support only " scientific

treatment " driven by questionable statistics and would not tolerate

dissension in the ranks. (This would only bring up more questions.)

AFTERALL chemo has been defended VEHEMENTLY for over 30 years by the AMA,

FDA, ETC and all other treatments ridiculed and labled " quackery " . How can

the hallowed " POWERS THAT BE " admit at any point that they have been wrong

all along. Especially with the the MULTI BILLION $$$ PROFITS THEY HAVE

ENJOYED. Also notice all the oncology centers that are springing up (at

least on the East Coast) complete with exercise facilities and therapeutic

aroma rooms, etc. Another enormous profit source.

BUT THERE IS ALWAYS HOPE. DUE TO THE PRESSURE FROM A MORE INFORMED/EDUCATED

PUBLIC, ALTERNATIVE TREATMENTS ARE RECEIVING MORE AND MORE ACCEPTANCE BY THE

AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY AND OTHER ORGANIZATIONS, BUT IT IS AN AGONIZINGLY

SLOW PROCESS

PS. To be fair, it is documented that chemo can cure certain types of

cancer and radiation can shrink some tumors, but THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE

WITH CANCER IN THE NY/NJ METRO AREA AND I'VE KNOWN ONLY A VERY FEW WHO HAVE

SURVIVED. MOST have taken THE CHEMO/RADIATION ROUTE. I'm told by our

complimentary dr that Carl is NOT getting a strong dose of chemo (650 mg 3

x's a week for one wk, then same dosage during the 4th wk of radiation. Rad

is for a total 5 1/2 wks. This relieves me somewhat. I'm still researching

other treatments should the cancer recur.

Lori: stay in touch....I'd like to know how Matt is doing and how his

pancreatic cancer is being treated. With a strong will he'll do well.

Re: [ ] Alternative methods? I don't get it.

>From: Dusan Stojkovic <dusan@...>

>

>At 11:37 26.05.99 -0700, you wrote:

>

> " We trust our doctor, but the disease we are battling does not have

>positive stats; we are survivors because we believe we can help ourselves

>fight the demon PC!!

>Lori (Matt, husband/PC dx 12/3/98) "

>

------------------------------------------------------------------------

How many communities do you think join ONElist each day?

More than 1,000! Create yours now!

------------------------------------------------------------------------

-List Archives:

/archives.cgi/

Web Sites:

http://home.sol.no/~dusan/cancerpage.html

http://www.geocities.com/~mycleanse/

http://www.geocities.com/HotSprings/1158

By joining the list you agree to hold yourself FULLY responsible FOR

yourself!

To unsubscribe from this list, send an empty message to:

-unsubscribeonelist

To change status from normal to digest , send an empty message to:

-digestonelist

To change status from digest to normal, send an empty message to:

-normalonelist

To subscribe again to the list, send an empty message to:

-subscribeonelist

[Guest guest]

At 10:56 27.05.99 -0500, you wrote:

>From: Carol Bilz <CBilz@...>

>

>PS. To be fair, it is documented that chemo can cure certain types of

>cancer and radiation can shrink some tumors

The problem is in definition of cancer, and in definition of word cure.

Medical establishment define cancer as some tisue (tumor) formed of

degenerated cells.

In other words, word cancer is used to represent malignant tumor.

My understanding of cancer is that cancer is disease of the whole body.

Tumor is only last stage of diseases that you can call toxemia.

Medical establishment says that cancer is cured when tumor is removed, or

when tumor dissapear.

I don't think so.

" Just by cutting an apple from the tree, you have not prevented tree to

grow other apples. "

If you have no tumor, but your body is full of toxins, it is only a

question of time when you are going to develope some other tumor, unless

you die from side efects of therapy before (kidney failure, heart failure,

infections, ...).

People say: " Cancer has come back. " " I got it again. "

The fact is: CANCER NEVER LEFT !

Cancer is disease of the whole body, it is internal pollution of the whole

body caused by toxins and/or " poisonous " thoughts and/or nutritional

deficiency and/or stress and/or suppression, AND/OR ENVIRONMENT, and / or

lifestyle...

It is almost always more " and " then " or " .

90% of people have develope cancer after any combination of all the abowe

causes.

THE PROBLEM IS IN DEFINITION OF CANCER !

If defined as malignant tumor, YES, you can sometimes " cure " it with

surgery, sometimes with chemo, sometimes with radiation.

BUT, CANCER IS NOT ONLY A MALIGNANT TUMOR. TUMOR IS ONLY THE LAST

MANIFESTATION OF TOXEMIA.

What does it mean cancer cured ?

Does it mean that you are cured if you don't develope new tumor within 5

years of treatment.

If you die from kidney failure, within 5 years of treatment, and you didn't

develope new malignant tumor, you are also going to be calculated as cured.

Yes, that is what medical establishment wants you to believe.

But what happen when you get new malignant tumor 6 years after treatment ?

OR 10 YEARS LATER ?

Do you still consider yourself cured ?

" Cancer came back, you say. "

Saying that you have cured cancer maan that YOU HAVE CURED IT AND PREVENTED

ITS REOCURANCE.

NOT ONLY FOR THE NEXT FIVE YEARS, NOT FOR NEXT 10 YEARS, BUT FOR 15 OR MORE

YEARS.

Then you can say: Yes, I HAVE CURED CANCER. BECAUSE ONLY WHEN YOU KNOW THAT

YOUR LIFESTYLE IS IN BALANCE WITH YOUR ENVIRONMENT AND WITH YOUR BODY, YOU

ARE NOT AFFRAID OF CANCER.

The only people who have confidence to say that they have cured cancer, and

that they have prevented it to reocure are people who did it by themselves,

by changing diet, lifestyle, attidude, emotions, environment, ...

People who understood what is causing cancer, and who removed those causes

AS MUCH AS THEY COULD.

Those people are feeling vibrant health inside their body and they know

that they are far away from cancer, much furher then 10 or 15 years ago,

when they thought that they are " PERFECTLY healthy " . There are no many

people OF THAT KIND, but there will be more and more of them.

Saying : " Yes, my cancer was cured, thanks to the treatment " , but being

deadly scared every next time you go to check up, is like saying : " I am

perfectly healthy, but I am affraid that I might be suffering from an

incurable disease. " Is that really health ?

Something is wrong in this way of thinking.

How many people do you know, who have survived 15 years after chemo ?

What was their lifestyle quality ?

The fact is, those who did survive long time after treatment, would for

sure live double so long, with many times better life quality, if they

never received any treatment.

Does poisoning tumor realy mean cure ?

Dose shrinking tumor realy mean cure ?

Dose removing tumor realy mean cure ?

Think twice !

Tumor is only one manifestation of cancer. Cancer is disease of the body

and mind.

What I am trying to say is:

I don't think that chemo and radiation are curing anything. Neither chemo,

nore radiation are dealing with the underlaying cause of the disease. How

can you cure disease , if you don't remove the cause ?

Actually, both chemo and radiation are increasing chances of cancer reocuring.

Doctors first scare shit out of you you by telling you that unles you

accept treatment, you are going to die very painful death.

Then they treat you so that you wish you are dead.

Finaly, when you are cured, if lucky, they tell you cancer can come back,

so that you learn what living the rest of your life in fear really mean.

I am sorry if this letter sounds desturbing for someone. But, that is the

picture that I have got.

Dusan Stojkovic

[Guest guest]

O.K. Thanks! Will do.

At 11:34 AM 5/27/99 EDT, you wrote:

>From: Jab44419@...

>

>Diane,

>Please go get or borrow the book by Dr. Cowden " Definitive Guide to Cancer "

>It is a thick book with 30 or so Dr. who practice natural medicine all over

>the states and Mexico. One section is on cancer and you need to read it.

>ja

>

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

>What do lizards and rock music have in common?

>

>They both have communities at ONElist. Find yours today!

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

>-List Archives:

>/archives.cgi/

>Web Sites:

>http://home.sol.no/~dusan/cancerpage.html

>http://www.geocities.com/~mycleanse/

>http://www.geocities.com/HotSprings/1158

>

>By joining the list you agree to hold yourself FULLY responsible FOR

yourself!

>

>To unsubscribe from this list, send an empty message to:

> -unsubscribeonelist

>

>To change status from normal to digest , send an empty message to:

> -digestonelist

>

>To change status from digest to normal, send an empty message to:

> -normalonelist

>

>To subscribe again to the list, send an empty message to:

> -subscribeonelist

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

At 11:42 AM 5/27/99 EDT, you wrote:

JA:

Nope, haven't had any blood work. Will print and take to doc for next

visit. Which surgery did you have???

Thanks,

Diane

>From: Jab44419@...

>

>Diane,

>Have you had blood work done? like the as27.29 or amass? If not I would

>highly recommend it as a baseline. Whatever you do, you can gauge it by

>watching these tests in future. I did not know about them in time to test

>prior to surgery, I do them each 2 months now.

>ja

>

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

>ONElist members are using Shared Files in great ways!

>

>Are you? If not, see our homepage for details.

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

>-List Archives:

>/archives.cgi/

>Web Sites:

>http://home.sol.no/~dusan/cancerpage.html

>http://www.geocities.com/~mycleanse/

>http://www.geocities.com/HotSprings/1158

>

>By joining the list you agree to hold yourself FULLY responsible FOR

yourself!

>

>To unsubscribe from this list, send an empty message to:

> -unsubscribeonelist

>

>To change status from normal to digest , send an empty message to:

> -digestonelist

>

>To change status from digest to normal, send an empty message to:

> -normalonelist

>

>To subscribe again to the list, send an empty message to:

> -subscribeonelist

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

This is the book I suggest thank you for getting correct name and title.

ja

[Guest guest]

Diane,

I had the lymph removed before I found out about other choices. I wish I had

known to have the as27.29 and amass before removal for a baseline to see if

the removal solved the problem. If your number go back normal than surgery

is all you need. Or if you don't have surgery, you can judge the treatment

as you go. Makes sense to me. So will use my after surgery number as

baseline and watch from changes. The amass test gauges antibodies, to see of

you body is fighting cancer cells (must be careful that your immune is

working or this could be deceiving) That is why I had a live blood cell test

also to show activity of white cells.

JA

[Guest guest]

Thanks again! You all are great!

At 11:25 AM 5/27/99 PDT, you wrote:

>From: " Keyes " <sandra_keyes@...>

>

>There is another book - An Alternative Medicine Definitive Guide To Cancer.

>It is by Dr. Cowden, Dr. Diamond and Burton Goldburg. The WHOLE book (1200

>plus pages) is on cancer.

>

>

>----Original Message Follows----

>From: Jab44419@...

>Reply- onelist

> onelist

>Subject: Re: [ ] Alternative methods? I don't get it.

>Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 11:34:55 EDT

>

>From: Jab44419@...

>

>Diane,

>Please go get or borrow the book by Dr. Cowden " Definitive Guide to Cancer "

>It is a thick book with 30 or so Dr. who practice natural medicine all over

>the states and Mexico. One section is on cancer and you need to read it.

>ja

>

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

>What do lizards and rock music have in common?

>

>They both have communities at ONElist. Find yours today!

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

>-List Archives:

>/archives.cgi/

>Web Sites:

>http://home.sol.no/~dusan/cancerpage.html

>http://www.geocities.com/~mycleanse/

>http://www.geocities.com/HotSprings/1158

>

>By joining the list you agree to hold yourself FULLY responsible FOR

>yourself!

>

>To unsubscribe from this list, send an empty message to:

> -unsubscribeonelist

>

>To change status from normal to digest , send an empty message to:

> -digestonelist

>

>To change status from digest to normal, send an empty message to:

> -normalonelist

>

>To subscribe again to the list, send an empty message to:

> -subscribeonelist

>

>

>

>_______________________________________________________________

>Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com

>

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

>With more than 17 million e-mails exchanged daily...

>

>...ONElist is THE place where the world talks!

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

>-List Archives:

>/archives.cgi/

>Web Sites:

>http://home.sol.no/~dusan/cancerpage.html

>http://www.geocities.com/~mycleanse/

>http://www.geocities.com/HotSprings/1158

>

>By joining the list you agree to hold yourself FULLY responsible FOR

yourself!

>

>To unsubscribe from this list, send an empty message to:

> -unsubscribeonelist

>

>To change status from normal to digest , send an empty message to:

> -digestonelist

>

>To change status from digest to normal, send an empty message to:

> -normalonelist

>

>To subscribe again to the list, send an empty message to:

> -subscribeonelist

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Diane,

No radiation. One chemo was enough to persuade me to go elsewhere. My Dr.

did not even check my liver or other organs for stress, as it turns out I

don't think my organs would have taken the chemo without major damage. The

one treatment for $3000 was like a cattle call and the Dr. never even came in

to pat me on the head during the treatment. Worst than physical was the

mental part of chemo for me. My whole body rebelled. The whole time I was

praying, reading, researching every place I could imagine to get some other

form of treatment. I went to a health food store and rented tape of a cancer

seminar and found my dr. there, I just knew he was the person I needed to

guide me through this.

JA

[Guest guest]

Diane,

I just realized I put lymph removed I meant lump. I did have some lymph

glands removed to test to see if it was in lymph sys. and it was not. My

lump was small but aggressive. They recommended 4 chemo treatments and 6

weeks of radiation. My new Dr. does not believe in radiation for my kind of

cancer and chemo as last resort. I know of women with larger lump that did

not remove them but got rid of them with methods I am using.

You may want to read The Cancer Battle, Anne Fromme, she has simple to read

approach that is where I started.

JA

[Guest guest]

O.K. Thanks. I guess I didn't realize you had anything removed? You did

one chemo treatment, then stopped that. Any radiation??

At 07:47 PM 5/27/99 EDT, you wrote:

>From: Jab44419@...

>

>Diane,

>I had the lymph removed before I found out about other choices. I wish I

had

>known to have the as27.29 and amass before removal for a baseline to see if

>the removal solved the problem. If your number go back normal than surgery

>is all you need. Or if you don't have surgery, you can judge the treatment

>as you go. Makes sense to me. So will use my after surgery number as

>baseline and watch from changes. The amass test gauges antibodies, to see

of

>you body is fighting cancer cells (must be careful that your immune is

>working or this could be deceiving) That is why I had a live blood cell test

>also to show activity of white cells.

>JA

>

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

>Congratulations to " M-K-ROSES, " our latest ONElist of the Week.

>

>Visit our homepage and share with us how ONElist is changing YOUR life!

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

>-List Archives:

>/archives.cgi/

>Web Sites:

>http://home.sol.no/~dusan/cancerpage.html

>http://www.geocities.com/~mycleanse/

>http://www.geocities.com/HotSprings/1158

>

>By joining the list you agree to hold yourself FULLY responsible FOR

yourself!

>

>To unsubscribe from this list, send an empty message to:

> -unsubscribeonelist

>

>To change status from normal to digest , send an empty message to:

> -digestonelist

>

>To change status from digest to normal, send an empty message to:

> -normalonelist

>

>To subscribe again to the list, send an empty message to:

> -subscribeonelist

>

>

>