Alternative to Chemotherapy
As I continue my research on alternative ways to heal cancer, I came across a feature on Dr. Ralph Moss, who has written the book, Questioning Chemotherapy, which documents the ineffectiveness of chemotherapy in treating most cancers.
He also wrote The Cancer Industry, a documented research work telling of the enormous financial and political corruption in the "cancer establishment". I believe this article is of utmost interest to you if you or a loved one has cancer. Dr Moss indicates that the motivating forces in cancer research and treatment are often power and money, and not the cure of cancer patients. He also writes, The Cancer Chronicles, a newsletter reporting on new cancer treatments and preventive measures.Dr. Moss' work documents the ineffectiveness of chemotherapy on most forms of cancer. However, he is fair in pointing out that there are the following exceptions: Acute Iymphocytic leukemia, Hodgkin's disease, and nonseminomatous testicular cancer. Also, a few very rare forms of cancer, including choriocarcinoma, Wilm's tumor, and retinoblastoma. But all of these account for only 2% to 4% of all cancers occurring in the United States.
This leaves some 96% to 98% of other cancers, in which chemotherapy doesn't eliminate the disease. The vast majority of cancers, such as breast, colon, and lung cancer are barely touched by chemotherapy. However, there is another category where chemotherapy has a relatively minor effect--The most "successful" of these is in Stage 3 ovarian cancer, where chemotherapy appears to extend life by perhaps eighteen months, and small-cell lung cancer in which chemotherapy might offer six more months.
Effective cancer treatment is a matter of definition. The FDA defines an "effective" drug as one which achieves a 50% or more reduction in tumor size for 28 days. In the vast majority of cases there is absolutely no correlation between shrinking tumors for 28 days and the cure of the cancer or extension of life.
When the cancer patient hears the doctor say "effective," he or she thinks, and logically so, that "effective" means it cures cancer. But all it means is temporary tumor shrinkage.
Chemotherapy usually doesn't cure cancer or extend life, and it really does not improve the quality of the life either. Doctors frequently make this claim though. There are thousands of studies that were reviewed by Dr. Moss as part of the research for his book--and there is not one single good study documenting this claim.
What patients consider "good quality of life" seems to differ from what the doctors consider. To most it is just common sense that a drug that makes you throw up, and lose your hair, and wrecks your immune system is not improving your quality of life. Chemotherapy can give you life-threatening mouth sores. People can slough the entire lining of the intestines! One longer-term effect is particularly tragic: people who've had chemotherapy no longer respond to nutritional or immunologically-based approaches to their cancers. And since chemotherapy doesn't cure 96% to 98% of all cancers anyway...People who take chemotherapy have sadly lost their chance of finding another sort of cure.
It's especially telling that in a number of surveys most chemotherapists have said they would not take chemotherapy themselves or recommend it for their families. Chemotherapy drugs are the most toxic substances ever put deliberately into the human body. They are known poisons, they are designed poisons. The whole thing began with experiments with "mustard gas," the horrible chemical-warfare agents from World War I.
This position on chemotherapy is supported by many major students of the study of cancer treatment. Here are some examples: Dr. John Bailar is the chief of epidemiology at McGill University in Montreal and was formerly the editor of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute. In 1986 the New England Journal of Medicine published an article by Dr. Bailer and Dr. Elaine Smith, a colleague from the University of Iowa. Bailer and Smith wrote: "Some 35 years of intense and growing efforts to improve the treatment of cancer have not had much overall effect on the most fundamental measure of clinical outcome - death. The effort to control cancer has failed so far to obtain its objectives.
Dr. John Cairns, a professor of microbiology at Harvard, published his view in Scientific American in 1985, "that basically the war on cancer was a failure and that chemotherapy was not getting very far with the vast majority of cancers."
As far back as 1975, Nobel Laureate James Watson of DNA fame was quoted in the New York Times saying that the American public had been "sold a nasty bill of goods about cancer."
In 1991, Dr. Albert Braverman, Professor of Hematology and Oncology at the State University of New York, Brooklyn, published an article in Lancet titled "Medical Oncology in the 1990s," in which he wrote: "The time has come to cut back on the clinical investigation of new chemotherapeutic regimens for cancer and to cast a critical eye on the way chemotherapeutic treatment is now being administered."
Dr. Braverman says that there is no solid tumor incurable in 1976 that is curable today. Dr. Moss confirms this and claims that the greatest breakthrough in the objective study of chemotherapy came from a biostatistician at the University of Heidelberg, Dr. Ulrich Abel. His critique focused on whether chemotherapy effectively prolonged survival in advanced epithelial cancer. His answer was that it is not effective. He summarized and extended his findings and concluded that chemotherapy overall is ineffective. A recent search turned up exactly zero reviews of his work in American journals, even though it was published in 1990. The belief is that this is not because his work was unimportant--but because it's irrefutable.
So why is chemotherapy still pushed by the large majority of oncologists? There's a tremendous conflict going on in the minds of honest, sensitive, caring oncologists. They're in a very difficult position because they've been trained to give these drugs. And they've devoted many years to reaching a very high level of expertise in the knowledge of poisonous, deadly compounds. They're really in a bind, because they went into oncology to help the cancer patient, yet the tools they've been given don't work. And they see what happens to physicians who "step out of line" and treat cancer with alternative means.
Armed raids, loss of licensure, professional smearing and ostracism are some of the consequences. These could all be related to the quotation in the book made by Dr. Lundberg, editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association. At a recent National Institute of Health meeting, he said of chemotherapy: "[It's] a marvelous opportunity for rampant deceit. So much money is there to be made that ethical principles can be overrun sometimes in a stampede to get at physicians and prescribers." You never heard that on the evening news.
The economics of cancer treatment are astounding. Cancer treatment is close to $100 billion annually ($100,000,000,000). The chemotherapy part of that by 1995 will be up to $8.5 billion.
We are obviously losing ground with conventional cancer treatment, because the death rates keep going up. The reason for this is because conventional treatment is based on a faulty standard: That the body must be purged of cancer by aggressive and toxic methods such as surgery chemotherapy and radiation therapy. This, of course, seemed reasonable back in 1894 when William Halsted, M.D. did the first radical mastectomy, but it has proven to be so wrong over the last 50 years that continuing to adhere to it constitutes more fraud than honest mistake. However, this standard still dominates conventional cancer therapy, and until that changes, we will continue to lose ground with cancer.
Dr. Whitaker, a firm believer in alternative cancer therapy goes on to give some of his personal views: Statistics Don't Tell the Real Story:
"What is lost in the unemotional statistic of 500,000 cancer deaths per year is how those people died. Dr. Whitaker goes on to say more about the treatment of cancer: In my opinion, conventional cancer therapy is so toxic and dehumanizing that I fear it far more than I fear death from cancer. We know that conventional therapy doesn't work--if it did, you would not fear cancer any more than you fear pneumonia. It is the utter lack of certainty as to the outcome of conventional treatment that virtually screams for more freedom of choice in the area of cancer therapy. Yet most so-called alternative therapies regardless of potential or proven benefit, are outlawed, which forces patients to submit to the failures that we know don't work, because there's no other choice.
Personal Belief Systems Determine the Choices You Make
Because cancer treatment is such a sensitive issue, I need to set some ground rules before I tell you what I would do if I had cancer. What follows is what I personally would do. It is not a recommendation for you, and should not be considered as such. It is not even what my wife would do(that would be her decision), nor is it what my young son would do (that would be the joint decision of my wife and myself). The choices to be made in treating cancer are not easy ones, because there is so little certainty of cure in any of them. The course that someone chooses to take is very personal, and reflects not only that person's knowledge of the options, but also his/her beliefs.
Yet, because we are strongly influenced by our natural fear of death, we lineup for conventional cancer therapy, not so much believing that it will work, but hoping that it will not fail. If expensive, debilitating procedures to eliminate acne scars had the same failure rate as cancer treatment, they would be abandoned. It is only because cancer is so often fatal that conventional approaches were not abandoned long ago. We continue to use them not because they work, but because those who perform them have so vigorously eliminated any other choice.
Though I would approach my own dilemma with hopes of total cure, I would be the first to admit that, regardless of the course I took, the chances of that are small. Consequently, my choices of cancer therapy are a mix of science and philosophy. They are as much a reflection of how I would struggle for survival as of how I would wish to die if the struggle failed. For the purposes of this discussion, let us assume that I have just been diagnosed with cancer of the lung, and a particularly virulent one. (Please understand that I do not have cancer, nor do I smoke.) Before going into what I would do and why, let me say what I wouldn't do, and why.
I Wouldn't Take A Passive Role. If I am going to fight for my life, I want to do just that. I'd Actively Fight For My Life.
The cancer patient who says, "no, thanks" to chemotherapy recommended by large cancer treatment centers, and takes off to Grand Bahamas Island to receive Immuno-Augmentative Therapy (IAT); or to Houston, Texas, to receive antineoplastons from Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski; or who heads to the public library to make a battle plan, has begun fighting and is acting courageously.
Whether I win or lose, that is the course I would take. What have I got to lose? Conventional treatment is toxic and simply doesn't work, so I would throw my lot with something safe that might work, and folks, a lot of approaches fit that description. I also believe patients who seek alternative therapies are more optimistic. They have only one worry - the cancer- not the cancer and the therapy!
And Now Here's What I Would Do:
I'd turn my back on 50 years of institutionalized expertise, because it follows the wrong paradigm. Everything that is done in medicine or in any other discipline fits some paradigm. The paradigm I use for cancer is that it is a systemic problem in which the normal control mechanisms of your body are altered. Your immune system likely bears the largest burden for this control; thus, all techniques that enhance it are promising. Those that damage it are not.
Also, cancer cells are different from normal cells in many ways, including their metabolic profile. At least one non-toxic therapy, hydrazine sulfate, takes advantage of this difference. It has been shown in double-blind trials published in respectable journals to significantly reduce the severe weight loss (cachexia) of advanced cancer, and markedly improve the patient's emotional state, almost to the point of euphoria. It is also inexpensive. Even though hydrazine sulfate has been shown to be effective and non-toxic, and it makes the patient feel better, it is ignored by every major cancer center. Yet I would take it immediately.
First, I would Change My Diet. I would switch to a mostly vegetarian diet. I'd also take the Nutritional Supplements "Green foods," such as GREENS+ or Green Magma. These supplements include the phyto-chemicals, antioxidants, vitamins, and minerals required for optimal health.
I would enhance that basic program with the following:
This is certainly not my final say on cancer treatment, because it changes as new research is done. I want to say again that what I would do is not a recommendation for you. However, it is not a reasonable belief to think that conventional cancer experts offer the best approaches for most cancers. There is just too much evidence to the contrary. One of these days there may not be a need for ''alternative' approaches to cancer. Until then, look for the answers to the cancer riddle in the growing field of alternatives, because they are obviously not present in our armamentarium of conventional therapies.
To discover what causes disease and cancer, visit www.cancer-free-for-life.com to purchase a copy of the book: "Cancer Free For Life", an investigation into disease, cancer and your power to heal your body.