- Site Disclaimer
- Why ?
- A to Z
- Cancer Main Page
- Vitamin B 3 for Alcoholism/Schizophrenia
- Niacin for Coronary Disease/Diabetes/Cancer
- Heart Disease
- DMSO/Vitamin B 12 For Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Fibromylgia
- Chlorine Dioxide for Malaria
- DMSO/MSM for Anemia
- DMSO For Crohn’s Disease
- DMSO & Vitamin B 12 For Chronic Fatigue
- Vitamin B 12 Deficiency
- Magnesium for Diabetes
- Magnesium for Health
- Iodine for Health
- Hall of Fame
- Main Hall
- Linus Pauling/Vitamin C
- David W. Gregg Ph.D
- Dr. A. Hoffer Niacin/Vitamin B3
- Dr. Joseph Gold
- Jim Humble/Sodium Chlorite
- Rene Ciasse
- Max Gerson
- Dr. Ernst T. Krebbs/Vitamin B17 Laetrile
- Dr. Otto Warburg/Cancer Cell Metabolism
- Dr. J. Kloss/Nutrition
- Rees Evans(1919)/Divine Power/Herbs
- Dr. William F. Koch
- Harry M. Hoxsey/Formula
- Vance Ferrell/Alternative Cancer Remedies
- Dr. H.L. Newbold/Vitamin A
- Dr. P. Knekt/Vitamin E
- Dr. Walter Blumer/EDTA
- Dr. Kazuhiko Azai/Germanium-132
- Dr. William D. Kelly/Diet
- Dr. John Beard/Diet/Enzymes
- DR. Naessens/714X
- Dr. Joseph Issels/Ganzheitstherapie
- Dr. Mikkel Hindhede/Vegetarian
- Dr. Charles O. Ozias/Diet
- Dr. F. W. Forbes Ross/Potassium Iodide
- Dr. Robert Bell/Previous Injury/Diet
- Dr. John Pattison(1958)/Escharotics
- Johana Budwig/Flaxseed Oil
- Dr. D. Harman/ Antioxidants
- Dr. Coffrey & Dr. Humber/ Enzymes
- Dr. Orlando Dei Santi/Pau d’arco
- Dr. Rashida Karmali/Omega 3 Oils
- Dr. F. Sweet /Ozone
- Dr. Ross Pelton/Nutritional supplements
- Dr. Gerhard N.Schrauzer/Selenium
- Dr Tibor Hajito/Mistletoe
- Dr. Lucius Duncan Bulkley(1890)/Nutrition
- Ann Wigmore/Wheatgrass
- Main Hall
- Health Plan
- Emotional Health
- Contact Us
THE AUTHORIZED TREATMENTS
Since this book is primarily written to medical researchers, it is well to clarify another reason for the great urgency in your conducting cancer research. The avenues for treatment, at present, are not good!
In this brief chapter, it will be shown that, unfortunately, even the officially authorized (often referred to as the “orthodox”) treatments for cancer are themselves seriously flawed!
Medical researchers, we need your help, in developing—and convincing—the medical establishment in America to use better methods of dealing with this most terrible of diseases!
It is frequently said that the orthodox cancer treatments are “cures.” In the American Cancer Society’s book, Unproven Methods of Cancer Management, updated periodically, the reader is told:
“Unfortunately, many patients with curable cancer leave the care of competent physicians to be treated with a worthless unproven remedy until a cure by accepted methods of treatment becomes impossible.”—American Cancer Society, Unproven Methods of Cancer Management,1971 Edition, 1.
In an ACS brochure, the following statement appears:
“Why not use an unproven method if it has been proven to be harmless? —Because time is cancer’s ally. Any time wasted on worthless unproven remedies may prevent a patient from obtaining proven treatment while his cancer is still curable.”—American Cancer Society, Cancer.
This concept is written into the lawbooks of California:
“The use of [laetrile] in early cancer to the exclusion of conventional treatment with acceptable modern curative methods (surgery or radiation) would thereby be delayed potentially until such time as metastasis had occurred and the cancer therefore might no longer be curable.”—California State Health and Safety Code, Section 10400.1.
Thus the orthodox methods are said to offer “cure,” and the only source available for it. Let us now consider each of the three officially approved methods of treatment:
Celsus, in the 1st century A.D., described a surgery for cancer of the lip. A century later, Leonidese also wrote about cancer surgery.
In the 14th century, Guy de Chauliac described a wide variety of cancer operations; and, two centuries later, Hildanus discussed the first axillary dissection for breast cancer. In 1891, Halsted detailed the first radical operation for breast cancer.His basic procedures are still in use.
The following statement appeared in an important Eastern scientific journal:
“Ten of our patients underwent an unsuccessful attempt by a surgeon to remove the tumor. All surgeons know that this procedure is usually followed by an increased growth of the tumor . .
“Although the most common factor related to spontaneous regression in our monograph was excision [removal] of the primary [tumor], I cannot attach much importance to it because metastasis develops so commonly after excision of the primary.”—“Spontaneous Regression of Cancer: The Metabolic Triumph of the Host?” Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 136-137 [emphasis ours].
“Metastasis” does have significant risks, because it requires cutting through the protective wall keeping the cancer bottled up. When – Part Eight – Additional InformationAdditional Information
When it is cut open (by the surgery), the cancer is likely to leaves its pocket (the tumor)—and begin quickly spreading through the bloodstream to other parts of the body. The same article noted that the statistical rate of “spontaneous regression” following surgery is 1 in 80,000 to 100,000 cases (op. cit., 111-112).Spontaneous regression occurs when the cancer subsequently disappears entirely from the body,for reasons which orthodox medicine says are unknown. The first statistical analysis of the survival rate after cancer surgery was done by Dr. Leroy d’Etoilles in 1844 and published by the French Academy of Science. Case histories of 2,781 patients (covering a 36-year period) were submitted by 174 physicians.
The average survival was only one year and five months—about what the average is today. “The net value of surgery or caustics was, in prolonging life, two months for men and six months for women. But that was only in the first few years after the initial diagnosis. After that period, those who had not accepted treatment had the greater survival potential by about fifty percent.”—Walter H. Walshe, The Anatomy, Physiology, Pathology and Treatment of Cancer, Boston, 1844 [emphasis ours]. But what is the survival rate today? In 1961, a large-scale controlled study was begun, to see if all the surgery was worthwhile. (By that time, not only the tumor was removed, but frequently the entire breast and lymph nodes, and often the ovaries also.)
Results of the 7½-year study were conclusive: Difference in the percentage of patients remaining alive mattered little whether they received a cancer operation—or no operation or other treatment at all! (R.G. Ravdin, et. al., “Results of a Clinical Trial ConcerningtheWorthof ProphylacticOophorectomy for Breast Carcinoma,”the Worth of Prophylactic Oophorectomy for Breast Carcinoma,”Surgery, Gynecology and Obstetrics, December 1970.)
A key factor here is that operations tend to open up the cancer, so it can begin to spread (metastasize)to other parts of the body. When cancers begin spreading to secondary locations in the body, the odds drop practically to zero, that the patient will survive. Johnstone says that, once metastasis occurs, the situation is almost out of control, as far as orthodox remedies are concerned.
“A patient who has clinically detectable metastases when first seen has virtually a hopeless prognosis, as do patients who were apparently free of distant metastasis at that time but who subsequently return with distant metastasis.”— F.R.C. Johnstone, M.D., California Medical Digest, August 1972, 838.
In addition, the operation caused a large wound, which the already greatly weakened body must try to heal.
Excluding skin cancers, according to ACS data, the statistical average is that the rate of long-term survival after surgery is only 10-15%. Once the cancer has metastasized to a second location, the cancer is in the bloodstream, and surgery has almost no survival value.
Before leaving this subject of cutting into cancer tissue, we should consider biopsies. Generally the first thing the physician wants to do, when a patient inquires whether he might have cancer, is to cut into the questionable tissue—in order to extract a small slice for microscopic examination. But this procedure is highly dangerous, for it tends to spread the cancer.
Even massaging a tumor is dangerous!
“Massage of a tumor is followed by massively increased numbers of circulating tumor cells in the blood stream . . Experimental data further suggest that surgical truama decreases natural host [body] resistance to the formation of metastasis . .
“Needle biopsy is occasionally used, [but] . . a needle track may harbor nests of cells which may form the basis for a later recurrent spread.
“Incisional biopsy of certain highly malignant tumors through an open operative field may be contraindicated because of risk of spread of the tumor throughout the operative field.”—ACS and University of Rochester, Clinical Oncology for Medical Students and Physicians, 3rd ed.,32, 34.
X-rays were first aimed at cancerous tumors in 1899. The first shipment of radium to the United States (1903) was given to the New York Academy of Medicine for the treatment of cancer. More recently, cobalt machines and proton accelerators were developed.But the principle underlying them all is the same as for surgery: While surgery cuts the tumor away, the radiation burns it away. It is, in effect, a radioactive knife, cutting into the tumor while filling nearby tissue with radioactivity. In addition to the problem of metastasizing, following the burning process, there are other problems with radiation treatments.
One problem is that excessive exposure to radioactivity induces cancer! The part of the body where the radiation treatment focused may have been burned out, but the surrounding tissue has tended to have cancer induced into it!
“Energy from the ultraviolet rays of sunlight, and ionizing radiations from X-rays, radium, and other radioactive materials encountered in industry and in the general environment cause a variety of cancers. The pioneer workers with radium and X-rays developed cancers of the skin. Even now,radiologists and others exposed to high total doses of ionizing radiation are more likely to develop leukemia than persons not so exposed. Uranium miners have been found to have a higher than normal incidence of lung cancer.”—Encyclopedia Britannica, 15th edition, 764.
Another problem is the fact that radiation therapy causes normal cells to be more easily damaged than cancer cells. Because tumors contain more non-cancer cells, than cancer cells, the tumor will reduce in size—because the noncancer cells were burned. Oddly enough, the cancer cells tend to be less harmed by the radiation— and remain in the now smaller tumor!
“Radiation and/or radiometic poisons will reduce palpable, gross or measurable tumefactions. Often this reduction may amount to seventy-five per cent or more of the mass of the growth. “For example, a benign uterine myoma will usually melt away under radiation like snow in the sun. If there be neoplastic cells in such a 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 per cent. “As all experienced clinicians know—or at least should know—after radiation or chemotherapy have reduced the gross tumefaction of the lesions, 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.”—John A. Richardson,M.D.,
Letter to interested Physicians, November 1972.Beware of all types of X-rays, much less the far more powerful cancer radiation treatments!
In 1971 a Dr. Robert Gibson, at the University of Buffalo, found that fewer than a dozen routine medical X-rays to the same parts of the body increase the risk of leukemia by at least 60% (R.W. Gibson, M.D., National Inquirer, December 5, 1971, 11).
“For each women who is possibly cured by early detection, there are four or five new cancers produced by these X-rays . . In my view this entire matter has become so serious that the NCI would be better off putting the money allotted for future screenings into a trust fund for the victims of the program who will develop cancer in ten to fifteen years’ time.”—Erwin Bross, M.D., National Inquirer, November 30, 1976, 49.
That article was written because Dr. Bross, director of biostatistics at the Roswell Park Memorial Institute of Cancer Research, called for an immediate stoppage to chest X-rays. He charged that the ACS and NCI had ignored the objections of scientists,—so they could obtain government grants of $54 million to carry out the screening.
Yet cancer radiation treatments are far worse! X-rays cause cancer; they do not cure it. Radiation therapy helps no one. The following statement is from the report of the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast Project: “From the data available it would seem that the use of post-operative irradiation has provided no discernible advantage to patients so treated in terms of increasing the proportion who were free of disease for as long as five years.”—B. Fisher, et., al., “Postoperative Radiotherapy and the Treatment of Breast Cancer; Results of the NSABP Clinical Trials, Annals of Surgery, October 1970.
Dr. Phillip Rubin, Chief of the Division of Radiotherapy at the University of Rochester Medical School, summarized their analysis of the value of radiation therapy for cancer in these words:
“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 irraditation.”—Phillip Rubin,
“The Controversial Status of Radiation Therapy in Lung Cancer,” Speech delivered to the Sixth National Cancer Conference, sponsored by the ACS and the NCI, Denver, Colorado, September 18-20, 1968.
At the same conference Dr. Vera Peters, a Toronto radiologist, said this: “There has been no true improvement in the successful treatment of the disease over the past thirty years.”—Vera Peters, “Radiation Therapy in the Management of Breast Cancer,” op., cit.
In the chapter on “Mutations” in his book, Origin of Life (Volume Two of the three-book Evolution Disproved Series), the present author wrote an article, entitled “Evolutionists’ Paradise” (pp. 424-427). It recounts the stories of the Chernobyl meltdown (April 27, 1990) and the Hiroshima nuclear blast (August 6, 1945). In both instances, large amounts of radiation were released.
Predictably no one was thereby cured of cancer! Instead, the radiation produced large numbers of mutations (all of which produced terrible results) and various diseases, including cancer. Mutations cannot cause the beneficial changes evolutionary theory requires, and radiation cannot cure cancer.
Unlike all other chemical treatments for drugs, the officially approved (orthodox) chemical treatment is based on the concept that every cell in the area of the tumor should be killed, in the hope that the cancer will be destroyed. For this reason, chemotherapy treatment consists of the administering of very powerful (powerful!) poisons. Only those chemical compounds are used which are guaranteed to kill cells.
Chemotherapy began in 1919, when nitrogen mustard was given to leukemia patients. As always, the hope was that the strong poison would kill the cancer before it killed the patient. Regardless of where the cancer is, the resultant poisoning affects the entire system. Dead blood cells cause blood poisoning while violent nausea, diarrhea, loss of appetite, and cramps occur in the stomach and intestines. The reproductive organs are affected, producing sterility or impotency. The brain is wracked with pain. Eyesight and hearing are damaged. The poison is so bad, even the hair falls out!Yet it is well-known among immunologists that one of the best defenses the body has against cancer is a healthy and well-functioning immunological system, which is centered in the white blood cells.
“The importance of the immune system in the defense against neoplastic disease [cancer] seems established. The high incidence of cancer of various types in patients with immune deficiency diseases and in patients who have received immunosuppressive therapy, especially after kidney transplantation, supports the concept that rejection of an incipient malignancy is an important function of the immune system.”— Annals of the New York Academy of Science, Vol. 230, op. cit., 45. Indeed, Dr. George Friou declared that the formation of new cancer cells is not unusual, but are normally overcome by the immune system, before they develop into a recognizable malignancy.But, in order to do that, the immune system must not be in a shattered state. (George J. Friou, M.D., “Relationship of Malignancy, Autoimmunity, and Immunological Disease,” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, March 18, 1974, 44-45, 48).
Yet the function of chemotherapy drugs, by the design of the drug companies and the request of orthodox medicine—is to destroy the body’s immune system, in the hope that, by doing so, the cancer will die! (“Spontaneous Regression of Cancer: The Metabolic Triumph of the Host?” Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 130.)
—But this will only result in the chemotherapy producing more cancer than it cures!-
You will recall that, in 1919, nitrogen mustard gas was the first chemotherapy given to cancer patients. A little over 20 years later, it was found that workers making mustard gas during World War II had far higher rates of lung cancer (Encyclopedia Britannica, 15th ed., 764).Listen to this: All the currently accepted chemotherapy drugs were given, one at a time, to test animals which had no malignancies,—and produced cancers in those previously healthy animals! (NCI research contract PH-43-68-998.)
Commenting on such facts, Dr. Dean Burk, while head of the Cytochemistry Division of the NCI, made this statement: “Virtually all of the chemotherapeutic anticancer 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) markly immunosuppressive,that is, destructive of the patient’s native resistance to a variety of diseases including cancer; and
(3) carcinogenic [cancer causing]
. . 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.”—Dean Burk, Ph.D., Letter dated April 20, 1973, to the head of the NCI.
As if that seems unbelievable enough, read this: “As yet, no drugs are available to cure most malignant tumors.”—Textbook of Medical-Surgical Nursing, 874. “No chemical agent capable of inducing a general curative effect on disseminated forms of cancer has yet been developed.”—Dr. Robert Sullivan of the Lahey Clinic Foundation, speech at the NCI Clinical Center auditorium, May 18, 1972.
“A cure from chemotherapeutic agents is not considered valid.”—“Spontaneous Regression of Cancer: The Metabolic Triumph of the Host?” Annals of the New York Academy of Science,179
James D. Watson, Ph.D., was a co-discoverer of the structure of the DNA molecule, for which he received the Noble prize. This scientist is quite knowledgeable in the medical research field and has the integrity to speak out:
“The American public is being sold a nasty bill of goods about cancer. While they’re being told about cancer cures, the cure rate has improved only about one percent. The grim cancer statistics are about as bad as ever. Today, the press releases coming out of the National Cancer Institute have all the honesty of the Pentagon’s.”—Dr. James Watson, quoted by attorney George Kell, in testimony before the California Assembly Committee of Health, May 20, 1976.
The handling of cancer statistics is a problem.
Dr. Hardin Jones, professor of medical physics and physiology at the University of California at Berkeley, is a recognized authority on cancer demography (cancer statistics). In a speech at the 1969 conference of the ACS, he declared that there is usually a wide difference between the published statistics about cancer success rates and the actual results of practicing physicians who universally experience a low success rate. The variation is accomplished by tampering with the statistics (Hardin B. Jones, Ph.D., “Report on Cancer,” paper delivered to the ACS 11th Annual Science Writers Conference, New Orleans, March 7,1969).
In his speech, Dr. Jones went on to explain some of the techniques used to “doctor” the statistics.One method is loading the statistics with easy to-heal skin cancers, plus a large number of conditions which may not have been cancer.
Another technique is to list any of the controls who died as having died while not listing any of the patients under treatment who died as having died.
In conclusion, Jones said this:“The apparent life expectancy of untreated cases of cancer after such adjustment in the table seems to be greater than that of the treated cases.”—Ibid.
The medical researchers, to whom this book and this chapter are written,—do you realize what that means? If you contract cancer, according Dr. Hardin Jones, an expert in cancer statistics, you will live longer if you just stay at home, make no changes, keep living the way you have been, and pay for no treatment!
This is why “cancer screening” and “early detection of cancer” by the physicians is even more dangerous! The quicker they apply the cut, burn, and poison, the quicker you will die.
Six years later, Dr. Jones must have retired, for then he really told it straight. Read this and burn it into your memory:
“You see, it is not the cancer that kills the victim. It’s the breakdown of the defense mechanism that eventually brings death. “With every cancer patient who keeps in excellant physical shape and boosts his health to build up his natural resistance, there’s a high chance that the body will find its own defense against cancer. He may have many good years left in good health. He shouldn’t squander them by being made into a hopeless invalid through radical intervention which has zero chance of extending his life.”—Hardin Jones, Ph.D.,quoted in Midnight, September 1, 1975.
“It is utter nonsense to claim that catching cancer symptoms early enough will increase the patient’s chances of survival. Not one medical scientist or study has proven that in any way . .
“My studies have proved conclusively that untreated cancer victims actually live up to four times longer than treated individuals.”—Hardin B. Jones, Ph.D., quoted in Daniel S. Greenberg,“Cancer: Now the Bad News,” Private Practice,May 1975, 68.
Research scientists, the “proven cures” of surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy do not exist.We need your help. Give us something better,something based on better living, which will give us longer living.We have spent billions, multiplied over and over again, on cancer research and treatment.
The money spent has accomplished nothing.
There is no such thing as a “fight against cancer.” Every year, the number of people dying of
1900 – 62 per thousand.
1910 – 76.2 per thousand.
1933 – 105 per thousand.
1948 – 143 per thousand.
1976 – 171 per thousand.
1995 – 237 per thousand.
A typical edition of the book, Unproven Methods,
published by the American Cancer Society,
lists 58 unproven methods of treating cancer. By
this is meant that these 58 methods have not been
tested by the ACS, SKI, or NIH, and shown to be
On that annotated list only about 10 were examined.
Some were given a cursory examination
and the notation of “no investigation.”
180 Alternate Cancer Remedies
It would appear that, at this rate, the book on
“unproven methods” will continue to be published,
since recognized authorities are not interested in
doing any proving.
Medical researchers, we need your help!
Please carry out the needed testing on worthwhile
methods, publish your findings, and demand
that action be taken on them!