To The Cancer Patient
by Tim O'Shea, DC
OK, so you've finally said "No more - whatever
happens will happen". You've refused further standard cancer treatment because
you've found out either through research or through personal experience, that
for the vast majority of cancer cases, it just doesn't work. People's last
months are made miserable with no upside.
So there you are, without a net. Guess what? There never was one. So forget
the politics of hospitals and insurance. You may feel that they ran their game
on you and the required funds were transferred from one account to another in
some data base somewhere, and here you are sitting at home looking out the
A good warrior must always assess his present position, evaluate his losses
and assets, and move forward. So what have you got? Well, you're alive. Maybe
they predicted that you wouldn't make it this long or else you've got X amount
of time to live. Who cares? You're no longer on their agenda, so now your
calendar's wide open. You refuse to die on schedule.
What else have you got? Well, you still have some kind of immune system
left, or else you'd be dead. What's an immune system? It's a complicated
system of cells and biological reactions which the body employs to ward off
invaders and to prevent its own cells from deteriorating or mutating. The immune
system is responsible for recognizing foreign proteins and cells and for
triggering an attack against them. The immune system is involved with a
never-ending second-by-second check of all your cells to see if they still look
like the rest of you. If they don't, they're immediately destroyed.
Most researchers, including Nobel prize winner Sir MacFarlane Burnet,
feel that in the normal body hundreds of cancer cells appear every day. These
mutating cells are simply destroyed by the normal immune system and never cause
a problem. Cancer only proliferates when a failing immune system begins to allow
abnormal cells to slip by without triggering an attack on them. That's how you
So looking at it this way, a tumor is a symptom, not a problem. A
symptom of a failing immune system. Cancer is a general condition that localizes
rather than a local condition which generalizes.
Most cancers are not found until autopsy. That's because they never caused
any symptoms. For example 30 - 40 times as many cases of thyroid, pancreatic,
and prostate cancer are found in autopsy than ever presented to the doctor.
According to a study cited in top British medical journal Lancet 13 Feb
93, early screening often leads to unnecessary treatment: 33% of autopsies show
prostate cancer but only 1% die from it.
After age 75, half of males may have prostate cancer, but only 2% die from
it. This means simply that the immune system can hold many problems in check, as
long as it is not compromised by powerful procedures. Guess which system is the
most important to you at this time, more than it's ever been before in your
whole life. Right - the immune system. Guess which system suffers most from
chemotherapy and radiation. Right again. So the one time in your life you most
need it, your immune system will be weakened by those therapies. If you're one
of the few cancer patients who's refused standard treatment from the get-go -
good, but your immune system still needs all the help you can give it.
A 1992 study in Journal of the American Medical Association of 223
patients concluded that no treatment at all for prostate cancer actually was
better than any standard chemotherapy, radiation or surgical procedure.
NEW DIET - NEW DISEASE
A hundred years ago, cancer was virtually unknown in the U.S. At that time
people relied more on whole foods, unrefined and generally in their original
form. Gradually, processed foods became a greater and greater proportion of the
American diet during the 1940s and into the 1950s, first in the canning
industry, which then developed into the food processing industry. The idea was
to make food last on the shelves as long as possible, thereby increasing overall
profits. The way this was done was by removing the natural enzymes contained in
the food. Enzymes are what makes food go bad, but they are also what makes food
digestible by the human body. So as more and more sophisticated methods of
removing enzymes from food were discovered, shelf life increased, and food value
What does all this have to do with cancer? I'm getting to that.
CRITICAL VALUE OF ENZYMES
When food that is difficult to digest continues to be forced into the body,
month after month, year after year, our own digestive system struggles valiantly
to try to break down all these weird, manmade foods that have only this century
appeared on the human scene. But eventually the system gets overtaxed, and wears
out. We keep taking in the same amounts of pizza, burgers, spaghetti, milk,
cheese, chips, and fries, but since we can't digest them completely, they start
accumulating in the digestive tract. Before long, we start absorbing the
undigested food into the bloodstream, intact. Big problem.
The autopsy on Elvis found 20 pounds of undigested food in the
intestine. With John Wayne it was 44! That took years!
Now remember that all food is in one of three forms: fats, proteins, and
carbohydrates. Normal digestion breaks them down into their usable forms -
fats into fatty acids, proteins into amino acids, and carbohydrates into
glucose. But if they are absorbed whole into the blood stream, which is abnormal
digestion, many bad results occur, most of which have a direct bearing on the
emergence of cancer.
Clumping together of red blood cells is a sign of the absorption of
undigested protein. In normal blood, the red cells should be round, freely
movable, and unattached. That way they can make their way through the blood
vessels and accomplish their number one job, which you will remember is to carry
oxygen to all the cells of the body. But the accumulation of undigested protein
in the blood makes these red blood cells stick together, like stacks of coins,
or like globs of motor oil. Once it gets like this, the blood tends to stay
aggregated. Imagine the difficulty, then, for the blood to circulate in such a
glopped-up condition. The smallest blood vessels, through which the blood has to
pass each time around, are the capillaries. But unfortunately, the diameter of a
capillary is only the same as one of the red blood cells - they're supposed to
circulate in single file. So what happens in a body whose red cells are all
stuck together for a few years? It's not rocket science: the tissues of the body
become oxygen deprived and are forced to stew in their own wastes.
Are we talking about cancer yet? We sure are. Nobel laureate Dr. Otto
Warburg discovered in the 1920s what all researchers now know: most cancers
cannot exist well in an oxygen-rich environment. Why is it that people don't die
of cancer of the heart? Just doesn't happen. Why not? Because that's where the
most highly oxygenated blood is, and cancer doesn't like oxygen.
Even more favorable for cancer is a setting of fermentation. That's a
big word for half-digested carbohydrates (sugar). Every bootlegger knows that as
sugars ferment, they bubble. The bubbles are the oxygen leaving. Cancer doesn't
like oxygen too well, but it loves sugar. Starting to get the picture here?
Fermentation means half-digested. Remember we talked about all that undigested
food accumulating in the gut and in the bloodstream because of not enough
enzymes? Well, a lot of that food was carbohydrate - you know, donuts, beer,
candy, ice cream, Pepsi, bread, pastries, etc.
Worse yet, the white cells, which are supposed to circulate as the immune
system, become trapped in all this muck. Remember what their job was? Right, to
remove foreign stuff immediately. A cancer cell is foreign stuff.
Another factor is pH. Acid-forming foods, such as the above, make the
blood more acidic. To sustain life, human blood pH must be in the range of
7.3 - 7.45 (Guyton). Outside that range, we're dead. Remember, the lower the
number, the more acidity. The more acid the blood is, the less oxygen it
contains, and the faster a person ages and degenerates. There's a major
difference in oxygen even within the narrow range of "normal' blood pH: blood
that is pH 7.3 actually has 69.4% less oxygen than 7.45 blood, according to
Whang's book, Reverse Aging. On a practical level, this means we should
do everything to keep the pH on the high side of the range, as close as possible
to 7.45, by eating as many alkaline foods as possible. That would be, you
guessed it - live, raw foods, especially green foods.
That's the faintest sketch about enzyme deficiency and acid-forming foods as
primary causes of creating a favorable environment in which cancer can grow.
We're constantly being hit with media stories about "progress" in the war on
cancer and new "breakthrough" drugs and procedures being "right around the
corner." The military rhetoric hasn't changed since 1971. Is it true that we're
winning the war against cancer like they're always telling us?
From the U.S. government's own statistical abstracts we find the real story:
Mortality from Cancer in the U.S.
|| deaths/ 100,000
source: Vital Statistics of the United States,
1992 is the last year for which data is currently available from Vital
Statistics. There is nothing to indicate that there should be any downturn
between 1992 and the present. In fact, independent analysis by the CA Journal
for Cancer Clinicians, Jan 97, put the 1993 death rate at 220 per 100,000.
Does that sound like progress?
Why does nobody know this? Bet you never saw this chart before.
Numbers can be twisted and made to do tricks. This chart is the raw data, not
age adjusted or divided by race, or type of cancer. Anyone can dig this
information up by going to any library reference section. But try finding a
medical reference or journal article or a URL that uses this chart. Try finding
a newspaper or magazine article in the last 15 years that uses the raw data. And
this data says one thing: more people are dying of cancer now per capita than
ever before, and nothing is slowing the increase. Not early detection, not
better screenings, not new high tech machines, not radiation, not surgery, and
definitely not chemotherapy.
Backtracking a little, in 1900 cancer was practically unheard of in this
country. By 1950, there were about 150 cases of cancer per 100,000 population.
In 1971, Nixon introduced the War on Cancer, opening the floodgates of
massive research funding backed by the government. This situation escalated
until by the 1980s, over $50 billion per year was being spent to "find the
cure." And yet we have the plain data in the chart above. What is going on?
THE BUSINESS OF CANCER
Industry. Politics. Big money. Health care. Buying and selling. You know -
life. More people living off cancer than ever died from it, and that's saying
quite a lot since by the 1990s the amount spent for cancer research and
treatment had jumped to $80 billion annually. But by this time more than 500,000
deaths per year in the U.S. were attributable to cancer, now second only to
heart disease on the list of killer diseases. All this money has not improved
the overall chances of survival from cancer even slightly.
Many cancer patients feel they're just a mark, a number, an insurance
account. The goal of every visit seems to be running up the bill, not improving
their overall health.
The American Cancer Society, for example, collects upwards of $400 million
per year. Very little of this money ever finds its way to research. The
majority of the money goes into investments and towards administration - lavish
salaries and perqs for the Society's officers and employees. A funny thing is
that written into the charter of the American Cancer Society is the clause that
states that if a cure for cancer is ever found, on that day, the Society will
disband. (The Cancer Industry) So think about it - is this an
organization that is going to be motivated to find a cure for cancer?
This is the underlying reality, but what do we hear on the surface, coming at
us every day from the scripted "reporting" of TV and news publications, or from
the lips of the oncologists making their reassuring pronouncements on the
outlook for our loved ones' chances of survival? We're "making progress." "Early
detection" is giving us a much better chance of "getting it all" by means of
immediate surgery or by chemotherapy and radiation. Then after surgery they tell
us we need to do chemo to put "the icing on the cake." Frightened to death, and
having nowhere else to turn, people have bought this company line for years and
years. As a result, they have been dying on schedule. But then, why would people
be told the truth? The goal of big money is big money. Finding a cure? Why on
earth would anyone want to do that?
But there's a limit to everything, even with the stranglehold on information
that is permitted to reach the purview of the general public. More and more of
us have watched our parents or our friends die wretched deaths, as all the 'big
guns' were pompously wheeled out, with the hospital happily billing the
insurance until coverage runs out. And some of us are saying Wait a minute, this
isn't about money - this is about my life. And people are deciding to take their
chances without standard slash-and-burn protocols, either by just staying home
and doing nothing, or else by experimentation with alternative therapies, which
have always been there all these years, just below the surface.
Considering chemotherapy? Consider this:
"chemotherapy is basically ineffective in the vast of majority
of cases in which it is given"
- Ralph Moss, PhD p81
"Cancer researchers, medical journals, and the popular media all have
contributed to a situation in which many people with common malignancies are
being treated with drugs not known to be effective."
- Dr. Martin Shapiro UCLA
"despite widespread use of chemotherapies, breast cancer mortality has not
changed in the last 70 years"
- Thomas Dao, MD NEJM Mar 1975 292 p 707
"Many medical oncologists recommend chemotherapy for virtually any tumor, with a
hopefulness undiscouraged by almost invariable failure."
- Albert Braverman MD 1991 Lancet 1991 337 p901
"Medical Oncology in the 90s"
"Most cancer patients in this country die of chemotherapy. Chemotherapy does not
eliminate breast, colon, or lung cancers. This fact has been documented for over
a decade, yet doctors still use chemotherapy for these tumors."
- Allen Levin, MD UCSF, The Healing of Cancer
Let's say you get cancer - in America it's 1 in 3. Your doctor says you need
chemo and sends you to an office in the hospital. You have no symptoms yet, no
pain, and you feel fine. But you're very frightened. You walk into the office
and everyone else there is in obvious pain and most of them are dying. It's like
a scene from a horror movie. Your first instinct is to run: I'm not like them!
I'm alive! What am I doing here?
Then ask yourself this: in your entire life, how often have your true instincts
CHEMOTHERAPY: AN UNPROVEN PROCEDURE
How can that be true of the main cancer treatment in the U.S.? Fact is, no solid
scientific studies or clinical trials prove chemotherapy's effectiveness, except
in a small percentage of very rare types of cancer. For solid tumors of adults,
the vast majority of cancer, or anything that has metastasized, chemotherapy
just doesn't work.
A German epidemiologist from the Heidelberg/Mannheim Tumor Clinic, Dr. Ulrich
Abel has done a comprehensive review and analysis of every major study and
clinical trial of chemotherapy ever done. His conclusions should be read by
anyone who is about to embark on the Chemo Express. To make sure he had reviewed
everything ever published on chemotherapy, Abel sent letters to over 350 medical
centers around the world asking them to send him anything they had published on
the subject. Abel researched thousands of articles: it is unlikely that anyone
in the world knows more about chemotherapy than he.
The analysis took him several years, but the results are astounding: Abel found
that the overall worldwide success rate of chemotherapy was "appalling" because
there was simply no scientific evidence available anywhere that chemotherapy can
"extend in any appreciable way the lives of patients suffering from the most
common organic cancers." Abel emphasizes that chemotherapy rarely can improve
the quality of life. He describes chemotherapy as "a scientific wasteland" and
states that at least 80 percent of chemotherapy administered throughout the
world is worthless, and is akin to the "emperor's new clothes" - neither doctor
nor patient is willing to give up on chemotherapy even though there is no
scientific evidence that it works! - Lancet 10 Aug 91 No mainstream media
even mentioned this comprehensive study: it was totally buried.
Similar are the conclusions of most medical researchers who actually try to work
their way past all the smoke and mirrors to get to the real statistics. In
evaluating a therapeutic regimen, the only thing that really matters is death
rate - will a treatment significantly extend a patient's life. I'm not talking
about life as a vegetable, but the natural healthy independent lifespan of a
Media stories and most articles in medical journals go to great lengths to hide
the underlying numbers of people dying from cancer, by talking about other
issues. In Questioning Chemotherapy, Dr. Ralph Moss talks about several of the
ways they do it:
Response rate is a favorite. If a dying patient's condition changes even
for a week or a month, especially if the tumor shrinks temporarily, the patient
is listed as having "responded to" chemotherapy. No joke! The fact that the
tumor comes back stronger soon after chemo is stopped, is not figured into the
equation. The fact that the patient has to endure horrific side effects in order
to temporarily shrink the tumor is not considered. That fact that the patient
soon dies is not figured into the equation. The idea is to sell, sell, and sell.
Also in the media we find the loud successes chemotherapy has had on certain
rare types of cancer, like childhood leukemia, and Hodgkin's lymphoma. But for
the vast majority of cancer cases, chemo is a bust. Worse yet, a toxic one.
Even with Hodgkins, one of chemo's much-trumpeted triumphs, the cure is
frequently a success, but the patient dies. He just doesn't die of Hodgkins
disease, that's all. In the 1994 Journal of the National Cancer Institute,
they published a 47-year study of more than 10,000 patients with Hodgkins
lymphoma, who were treated with chemotherapy. Even though there was success with
the Hodgkins itself, these patients encountered an incidence of leukemia that
was six times the normal rate. This is a very common type of reported success
within the cancer industry - again, the life of the patient is not taken into
In evaluating any treatment, there must be a benefits/risks analysis. Due to
gigantic economic pressures, such evaluation has been systematically put aside
in the U.S. chemotherapy industry.
THE BI-PHASIC EFFECT: WHY CHEMO DOESN'T WORK
Every time we put a drug in our body, two things happen:
1. what the drug initially does to the body
2. how the body adapts to the drug
Any example will do. Antibiotics? First, the drug kills all bacteria in the
body. Then the body responds by growing them back, often with the bad bacteria
out of balance, which come back in more powerful, mutated forms. Steroids?
First, muscles are built because testosterone has been mimicked. Then the body
responds by cutting production of natural testosterone, which eventually
feminizes the athlete by shrinking the gonads. Heroin? First it blocks the pain
receptors and sends happy hormones called endorphins through the body, giving an
overall feeling of wonderfulness. The body responds, by getting so used to this
euphoria that when the heroin is stopped, the reality of pain receptors going
back to work again is unbearable.
Obviously these are simplifications, but you get the idea.
Dr. Dean Black puts it this way:
"Drugs tend to worsen whatever they're supposed to cure, which sets up a vicious
Health at the Crossroads p 20
The Bi-Phasic Effect is well-explained by Dean Black and many other researchers
who were trying to figure out why tumors seemed to come back with such a
vengeance after chemotherapy. Some original work was done by American Cancer
Society researcher Robert Schimke in 1985, who discovered that the way
cancer cells resist chemotherapy is to replicate even harder and faster. Chemo
drugs are lethal; so the cancer cells are stimulated to try and survive any way
they can, which means faster growth. In the presence of any toxin, cells will
resist it to stay alive. The more they resist, the stronger they get. Black sees
cancer itself is just an adaptation; a normal response to an abnormal poison.
Chemotherapy simply provokes adaptation. (Black, p.45) This is why we all know
people who have had chemotherapy and experienced temporary remission. But when
the tumor came back, it did so with a vengeance, and the patient was quickly
Schimke talks about the possible effects chemotherapy might have on a tumor that
otherwise may have been self-limiting:
"Might such treatments convert relatively benign tumors into more lethal forms?"
- Robert Schimke p1915
Think about this the next time you hear an oncologist talk about "mopping up"
with powerful chemo drugs just to be sure we "got it all." Or prescribing
powerful chemotherapy for a "pre-cancerous" or even a benign situation.
To understand the bi-phasic effect, one begins to realize that drugs are
fighting the body. The whole military motif - medicine imposes its will upon the
body, even though we have vastly incomplete information to be doing something
is an important concept to understand if you are being given combinations of
more than one chemotherapy drug at once. "Cocktails" have become standard
treatment in many oncological protocols: concoctions of two or more powerful
cytotoxic agents which supposedly will "attack the tumor" in different ways. In
the above study, Robert Schimke noted that with chemo combos the rebound effect
- the second phase where the tumor responds to the drug - may bring about a
tumor cell proliferation rate which may be 100 times faster than the response to
one single chemo drug may have been. Proliferation means the rate at which the
tumor cells reproduce themselves, i.e., grow.
is the word that describes chemotherapeutic drugs. It means "cell-killing."
Chemo-therapy kills all the cells of the body, not just the cancer cells. The
risk is that chemo will kill the patient before it kills the cancer. Which
usually happens. Therefore the only question that should be asked when deciding
whether or not to begin chemo is this: will this drug prolong the patient's
natural lifespan? Is it likely to? The unadorned data says no.
which today 1 in 8 American women may expect, is an obvious area of failure and
misinformation. A professor at Northwestern U School of Medicine, Dr. Edward
" over a period of 100 years, breast cancer treatment has evolved from no
treatment to radical treatment and back again with more conservative management,
without having affected mortality."
Journal of the American Medical Association, Sept. 4, 1991.
In their latest mood swing, recently the medical consensus, whatever that means,
is moving back toward more radical mastectomy again. In an article from the
New York Times, 14 Jan 99, a new Mayo Clinic study being published in the
New England Journal of Medicine, is backtracking to a former position.
Bilateral radical mastectomy of healthy breasts supposedly "reduces the risk of
getting breast cancer" by 90%! I am not making this up. Obviously, if a woman
doesn't have breasts, how can she get breast cancer? This type of insanity - a
recommendation to remove healthy breasts with the idea to prevent a disease a
woman doesn't have - makes you wonder what's next. Why not euthanasia? - that
way the patient will have a zero percent chance of ever getting any disease
What effects are these fickle, intellectualized medical opinions having on death
rate? None. Actually it's even worse than that. From the same hard data sources
cited above, Vital Statistics, we can look up the actual death rate for breast
Early mammograms: no effect. Chemotherapy: no effect. Surgery: no effect.
Figures like these are extremely well hidden and can only be unearthed with
great efforts, like walking up the stairs to the fourth floor at the library.
But that is a great effort. Who goes to the library? A net search can instantly
turn up 100 articles on the latest chemotherapy drugs and their anticipated
"breakthroughs" and "response rates" that have always been "just around the
corner" since 1971. Every week shows dozens of magazine and newspaper articles
spouting the "latest thing" in chemotherapy. This is world class dog-wagging.
Olympic carrot-and-stick dangling.
This is one topic where the line between advertising and scientific proof has
become very blurred. As far back as 1976, the American Cancer Society itself and
its government colleague the National Cancer Institute terminated the routine
use of mammography for women under the age of 50 because of its "detrimental"
(carcinogenic) effects. More recently, a large study done in Canada on found
that women who had routine mammograms before the age of 50 also had increased
death rates from breast cancer by 36%. (Miller) Lorraine Day notes the same
findings in her video presentation "Cancer Doesn't Scare Me Any More." The
reader is directed to these sources and should perhaps consider the opinion of
other sources than those selling the procedure, before making a decision.
John McDougall MD has made a thorough review of pertinent literature on
mammograms. He points out that the $5-13 billion per year generated by
mammograms controls the information that women get. Fear and incomplete data are
the tools commonly used to persuade women to get routine mammograms. What is
clear is that mammography cannot prevent breast cancer or even the spread of
breast cancer. By the time a tumor is large enough to be detected by
mammography, it has been there as long as 12 years! It is therefore ridiculous
to advertise mammography as "early detection." (McDougall p 114)
The other unsupportable illusion is that mammograms prevent breast cancer, which
they don't. On the contrary, the painful compression of breast tissue during the
procedure itself can increase the possibility of metastasis by as much as 80%!
Dr. McDougall notes that a between 10 and 17% of the time, breast cancer is a
self-limiting non-life-threatening type called ductal carcinoma in situ.
This harmless cancer can be made active by the compressive force of routine
mammography. (McDougall, p105)
Most extensive studies show no increased survival rate from routine screening
mammograms. After reviewing all available literature in the world on the
subject, noted researchers Drs. Wright and Mueller of the University of British
Columbia recommended the withdrawal of public funding for mammography screening,
because the "benefit achieved is marginal, and the harm caused is substantial."
(Lancet, 1 Jul 1995) The harm they're referring to includes the constant
worrying and emotional distress, as well as the tendency for unnecessary
procedures and testing to be done based on results which have a false positive
rate as high as 50%. (New York Times, 14 Dec 1997)
is one of the worst areas of chemotherapy abuse, according to Norman Zinner, MD.
"Most men with prostate cancer will die from other illnesses never knowing
they had the problem."
Hormones have been used as therapy since the 1940s, with no overall improvement
in survival. Early detection of prostate cancer has resulted in thousands of men
being treated for a condition that would have been self-limiting. No figures are
available for those who have died from the side effects of treatment when the
condition would never have caused any problems or symptoms during the patient's
entire lifetime. Composer Frank Zappa, now decomposing, found out this fact
before he died at 52, but it was too late. Some studies show rates as high as
40% in autopsies of men over 70 in which prostate cancer was discovered which
the patient never knew about, and which was not the cause of death. (American
Cancer Society, 1995).
There are no randomized clinical trials proving that chemotherapy for prostate
cancer increases long term survival. Au contraire, a 1992 study published in
JAMA demonstrated that there was no difference in 10 year survival rate
between the men who did nothing at all and those who had treatment. (Johansson)
Latest in the dog-and-pony show for prostate cancer: palladium implants. A
couple hundred radioactive implants each about the size of a grain of rice are
sewn into the scrotum (watch out for airport metal detectors!) This unproven and
experimental procedure harks back to the days of radium implants in the blood, a
very popular procedure for several decades earlier in the 20th century, when the
Big Three were surgery, radiation, and radium implants. To see what radium
implants looked like, rent Jack Nicholson's The Two Jakes. No cancer was ever
cured from radium, and it was finally replaced by chemotherapy, which has
roughly the same success. Here's why palladium implants are unlikely to work:
it's not the prostate that has cancer; it's the person. Cancer is systemic -
it's all through you.
SIDE EFFECTS OF CHEMOTHERAPY
It's already a word game. Drugs don't really have side effects. They just have
effects. Especially in the case of chemotherapy where there's almost never any
Since chemo drugs are some of the most toxic substances ever designed to go into
a human body, their effects are very serious, and are often the direct cause of
death. Like the case of Jackie Onassis, who underwent chemo for one of the rare
diseases in which it generally has some beneficial results: non-Hodgkins
lymphoma. She went into the hospital on Friday and was dead by Tuesday. What
happened? Most of that type patients survive, but even the ones that don't
usually won't die for a year or so. Some sources imagined that since this was
such a high profile patient, they'd given her an "extra strong" dose to "kill
the cancer" faster. Unfortunately they miscalculated: there was a patient
Aside from the standard hair loss, nausea, vomiting, headache, and dizziness,
many chemotherapy drugs have other specific severe side effects. Most have an
immediate suppressive effect on bone marrow. This is where new blood cells are
normally being produced all the time. This is the #1 way chemo knocks out the
immune system, at the one time in your life you need it the most.
All are extremely hard on the liver, because that's the organ whose job is to
try and break down toxins that have made it past the digestive tract. Liver
fibrosis is a very common sequella of methotrexate.
Methotrexate also causes bleeding ulcers, bone marrow suppression, lung damage,
and kidney damage.
(HSI Newsletter Apr 1999 p5) It also causes " severe anemia, and has triggered
or intensified cancerous tumors." (Ruesch, p 18)
The nitrogen mustard derivatives are, incredibly, still in use, though
usually in combination with other drugs. Common effects are permanent sclerosing
(hardening) of the veins, blood clotting, and destruction of skin and mucous
Cytoxan is one of the most common chemo drugs. Besides the "normal" side
effects, it causes urinary bleeding, lung disease, and heart damage.
Any of the alkylating agents commonly result in the cancer becoming resistant to
them. Thus the cancer is actually stimulated, and for this reason, alkylating
drugs must be thought of themselves as carcinogenic, with new cancers from the
drug as high as 10% of the time! Hello? Anybody out there?
Any chemo drug can cause permanent neurological damage practically anywhere in
Corticosteroid drugs have an entire array of side effects, the worst being
immediate destruction of the gastric mucosa, which explains loss of appetite,
and also accelerated osteoporosis and cartilage destruction in the joints.
This is just a partial list of some of the more common side effects, but it
really makes you wonder: are these effects really worth the possible benefit of
temporary tumor shrinkage with no proven increase in survival?
WHAT KIND OF MONEY ARE WE TALKING ABOUT HERE?
There is really no way to track how many patients are receiving chemotherapy per
year. Or rather, it simply isn't done in the U.S. the way it is in Europe. That
fact is quite indicative in itself. If the focus were health care, and
monitoring the effectiveness of a cure, why wouldn't there be extensive
inter-hospital data bases to follow up on successful treatment? What can be
tracked is the amount of cytotoxic drugs sold by the pharmaceutical companies.
This amount has grown from $3 billion in 1989 to over $13 billion in
1998. (Moss p75) These figures are chemotherapy drugs sales only, not taking
into account professional or hospital fees associated with treatment.
Cancer's share of the total US health budget is calculated at 9.8% according to
the AHCPR (Agency for Health Care Policy and Research) 1994 figures, the most
recent. Let's see, 9.8% of 1 trillion dollars: that means the cancer industry is
turning over about $98 billion per year. Any questions?
It is startling to discover what chemotherapy drugs are made from. The first
ones were made from mustard gas exactly like the weapons that killed so many
soldiers in WW I, eventually outlawed by the Geneva Conventions. In the 1930s,
Memorial Sloan-Kettering quietly began to treat breast cancer with these mustard
gas derivatives. No one was cured. Most of the medical profession at that time
regarded such "treatment" of malignant disease as charlatanism.
Nitrogen mustard chemotherapy trials were conducted at Yale around 1943. 160
patients were treated. No one was cured.
WHY NOT DRANO?
The beginning of the hype that promised to cure all cancer by means of chemo
drugs, came as an offshoot of the postwar excitement with the success of
antibiotics and the sulfa drugs. Caught up in the heady atmosphere of visions of
money and power in vanquishing cancer, Memorial Sloan-Kettering began to make
extravagant claims that to this day have never been realized. Some 400,000 "cytotoxins"
were tested by Sloan-Kettering and the National Cancer Institute. The criteria
in order to be tested were: will the toxin kill some of the tumor cells before
it kills the patient. That's it! Many were brand new synthetic compounds. But
thousands of others were existing poisons which were simply refined. Finally
about 50 drugs made the cut, and are the basis of today's chemotherapy medicine
One of these 50 is a sheep-deworming agent known as Levamisole. With no
major clinical trial ever showing significant increased long term survival with
Levamisole, it is still a standard chemotherapy agent even today! The weirdness
is, Levamisole was included for its "immune system modulation" properties.
However, its major toxicities include:
- decreased white cell count (!)
- flu symptoms
- abdominal cramps
Some immune booster!
A 1994 major study of Levamisole written up in the British Journal of Cancer
showed almost double the survival rate using a placebo instead of
Levamisole! The utter mystification over why this poison continues to be used as
a standard component of chemo cocktails can be cleared up by considering one
simple fact: when Levamisole was still a sheep de-wormer, it cost $1 per year.
When the same amount was suddenly upgraded to a cancer drug given to humans, now
it costs $1200 per year. Thank you, Johnson & Johnson. ( Los Angeles Times
11 Sep 93.)
A funny phrase that doctors use when talking about chemotherapy is that it is a
"dose-limiting" treatment. All that means is that if the dose is not limited,
the patient dies. It is inexplicable when patients tell me their family's
chemotherapy stories, usually involving a family member, in which they talk
about toward the end, where the doctors gave the patient "5 times" or "20 times"
the lethal dose! I hear this all the time, and when you really get what they're
saying, the level of barbarity is appalling. The doctors are saying at the end,
Well it's hopeless - we may as well give him 5 or 20 times the normal dose of an
already poisonous drug, what difference will it make? We tried our best. Totally
forgetting that the patient even while dying is a human being, and the goal
wasn't to kill the tumor; it was to save the patient. Or are they saying, quick
this guy is dying, the insurance is still running .? This is a major risk of
giving the hospital carte blanche. Reminds me of giving a kid a credit card,
hoping he'll be judicious.
When any chemotherapeutic drug is spilled in the hospital or anywhere en route,
it is classified as a major biohazard, requiring the specialists to come and
clean it up with their space-suits and all their strictly regulated protocols.
Yet this same agent is going to be put into the human body and is expected to
cure it of disease? What's wrong with this picture?
is another colossal failure. When the oncologist starts talking about
interleukin-2, it's usually time to start thinking about coffin selection,
because by then the big stuff has been pretty much tried and met with its usual
failure. The brilliant thinking behind interleukin-2 and other 'vaccine' - type
agents is that now we're gonna transform the patient's lymphocytes into an army
of killer T-cells, which will then descend on those troublesome cancer cells and
"root them out of there." Just one problem with this theory: no foreign antigens
have ever been identified in tumor cells. And that's the only way that
lymphocytes work - destroying foreign antigens - the not-self cells. So even if
the T-cell count can be boosted, there is simply no way these lymphocytes can be
directed at cancer cells, because the cancer cells don't appear that different
from normal cells.
The other vexatious feature of interleukin-2 therapy is that because of its
last-ditch status in the oncological pharmacopoeia, the patient's immune system
is generally so depressed by the surgery/chemo/radiation it has just endured,
there's simply not much of it left to work with. Once your immune system's gone,
so are you.
Professor George Annas, a medical ethicist, who analyzed the controlled clinical
trails done at the National Cancer Institute on interleukin-2 was slightly less
than enthusiastic about interleukin-2 patients:
" more than 80% of the patients did not do any better and they actually did
worse. They died harder. That's not irrelevant. We always tend to concentrate on
the survivors, but we've got to make the point that 80 per cent had terrific
side effects and didn't get any measurable increase in longevity."
New York Times 3 Mar 94
Dr. Martin Shapiro agrees:
"revelations about the apparent ineffectiveness of the experimental cancer
drug interleukin-2 are but the tip of an iceberg of misrepresentation and
misunderstanding about cancer drug treatments in general."
Los Angeles Times 9 Jan 87
METAPHORS OF WAR
Mainstream cancer theory is all in military terms:
the war on cancer
killing the tumor cells
killer T cells
stopping the advance
powerful drugs as weapons
This type of thinking is so pervasive that it's become second nature for most of
us. The very failure of the entire cancer industry to slow the death rate over
the past fifty years may indicate that perhaps it's time to look for another
paradigm. They have failed, but they can't admit it because the whole thing is
market-driven. It's imponderable that doctors continue to prescribe a volatile
poison which they know will kill the patient, simply because it's their only
tool! This can't be an acceptable excuse! You don't want to believe that things
are really this perverse, but in most cases due diligence will bring such a
WHO ARE THE QUACKS?
The American Cancer Society and the FDA have a list of "Unproven Methods" for
cancer. As you might expect, the criteria for getting on this list are
- in a natural form
- not produced by the Drug Industry
- easily available without a prescription
Even though chemotherapy and radiation and palladium implants are completely
unproven themselves, and frequently are the cause of death themselves, they are
not on the Unproven List. Why not? Because they're expensive, can be completely
controlled, and are patentable. This last deserves some explanation.
In order for a drug to be approved by the FDA, the manufacturer must do years of
studies, which may cost anywhere between 17 to 100 million dollars. (Day) Now if
a company is going to spend that kind of money, they don't want some other
company stealing their formula after they've gone to all that trouble developing
it. Their guarantee is called a patent - legally it's their drug and no one can
copy it for 17 years.
Do you think after all that trouble, a drug company wants somebody to come along
with a totally cheap, available, and natural product which has the same effect
as their drug, yet with none of the side effects? Of course not! And do you
think they'll do everything they can both legally and politically to prevent
natural products from reaching the market? You better believe it. Two books
which best document some of the effective natural cures for cancer which have
come along in the past 75 years and have faced a tidal wave of opposition from
the FDA/AMA/Drug Trust are: Ralph Moss's The Cancer Industry and Richard
Walters's Options. Some of these natural cures are still around in the
US, though they are under attack. Others can only be obtained in Mexico or
Europe. And still others have been crushed out of existence for good by the
Darth Vader faction. You can do the historical research yourself on some of the
following products and innovators:
William Kelley, Hoxsey, Gaston Naessens, Max Gerson, Kurt Donsbach, William
Koch, Dr. Burzynski, Dr Blass, Dr. Loffler, Stan Bynum, Patrick Flanagan,
Microhydrin, 714x, Haelan, antineoplastins, raw foods, live cell therapy, ozone,
EDTA chelation, Laetrile, Coley vaccines, Hydrazine sulfate, Hans Nieper, JH
Tilden, whole foods vitamins, antioxidants, colon detoxification, the Rife
machine, the black box, green foods - this is a partial list. Many names have
been lost forever. Separately or in combination, these methods and these healers
have resolved cancer in thousands of cases during the past 75 years. Some of the
technology has been repressed out of existence - other methods are quite easy.
What they have in common is that they are non-patentable generally natural
methods which have no significant side effects, and work with one common goal:
strengthen the immune system. If cancer is to be overthrown, only the body
itself can do that.
The above names were not people whose first goal was to make personal fortunes
and lock their discoveries away from those who wanted to copy them. The Drug
Trust, which includes the pharmaceutical industry, The AMA, the FDA, and even
the FTC, have what can only be described as a de facto monopoly on cancer
treatment in this company. Their goal is not curing cancer or helping people die
with dignity, or trying to discover a cure, or relieving pain, or giving
Americans a better life. Their only focus is profit, and they have proven for
the past century that there are no limits they will observe to secure their
control of what has become an $90 billion per year industry. If this sounds
harsh or paranoid, start perusing the appended reference list and tell me what
you come up with. Or try and find one single treatment on the FDA's "Unproven
Methods" list that is patentable as a drug.
Now I've always heard it's not good manners to criticize without offering an
option, a new approach. What if that new overview would focus on wholeness, on
health, on only giving the body something that will immediately improve its
healing capabilities. The body's resistance is already run down; let's build it
So let's outline four main lines of action, all of which will nourish and
support whatever immune system you're still in possession of.
Simple. Clean it up. You know what's bad by now. Probably that's what got you
into this mess. If you're still smoking, stop reading and throw this away.
Sayonara. As far as food and drink, try this:
sugar, soft drinks
|raw fruit roast fish water
whole grains fruit juice
raw vegetables pasta
Mega amounts of these live foods. Eat and drink constantly. Probably won't kill
you to cheat a little once in a while, but then again, it might.
Even mainstream medicine acknowledges the importance of diet in fighting cancer:
Over 3000 studies in mainstream medical journals document successful treatment
of cancer with nutritional supplementation. But the medical profession continues
to pretend that nutrition is a "feel-good adjunct" to the "real treatment" -
chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery, even though these procedures have not
significantly improved survival rates since the time of our grandparents.
- NewEngJMed 314, 1986 1226
Avoid negative people and negative input. Disconnect your cable and your TV
antenna. Unplug your phone unless it brings happy news. This step #2 is
definitely not optional, I can tell you from personal experience. If you're
going to try a program like this, don't be stupid enough to expect people's
approval. Expect ridicule. Expect threats. Then avoid those people. No matter
who they are. Selfish? You bet. Time to be selfish.
Do something. Breathe. Walk. Swim. Bicycle. Run. Work out.
#4 THE SUPERFOODS
There are several products available on the market today which claim to be of
benefit to someone in your position. Many are bogus, some are OK, and some are
superlative. I think this would be a good time to cut right to the superlative.
Of great value to the cancer patient would be:
2. Digestive Enzymes
3. Colon Detox/ Flora
4. Vit/Mineral Complex
Just a few words about each:
Know what free radicals are? Bad guys. Unstable molecules that get into your
blood and break down normal cells, then screw up your DNA codes. If you've got
cancer, it started with one cell. Where do free radicals come from? Well,
- processed foods
- primary and secondary smoke
- air pollution
- environmental toxins
- drugs and alcohol
- city life
Think you got any? Free radicals change DNA within cells. When the number of
free radicals that we take in every day becomes greater than what the body's
available antioxidants can deal with, those changed cells start reproducing
themselves. And that's how cancer starts. Cancer happens when cells proliferate
but can no longer specialize.
This is not a theory, but is totally verifiable and recognized, except by those
who don't do their homework.
A hundred years ago, cancer was virtually unknown in the U.S. Processed foods
became a greater and greater proportion of the American diet during the 1940s
and into the 1950s, first in the canning industry, which then developed into the
food processing industry. Fast food restaurants began in the 60s and by the 70s
had moved into almost every neighborhood from New York to Los Angeles. The
chemical additives and preservatives in these new foods are a prime source of
free radical production.
More bad news is that any one free radical can proliferate by means of a little
biochemical birthday party known as free radical chain-carrying mechanism. One
guy becomes a thousand, real fast.
Antioxidants are substances that neutralize free radicals, rendering them
instantly harmless. Without going on for 25 pages, Life Force Antioxidant is one
of the most potent and cleanest antioxidant blends available, not just
theoretically, but instantly verifiable on microscope even to a non-medical eye.
Another extremely effective antioxidant on the scene today is called microhydrin.
Without going into a long explanation, it simply puts tons of free hydrogen
electrons into the body which neutralize free radicals, much faster than vitamin
C, pycnogenol, or selenium. Just take it. You're already losing the free radical
battle. Two capsules four times a day will minimize free radical damage to the
red cells and tissues. For those trying to make up for lost time, 6-10 per day
are recommended, until you're winning the battle.
2. DIGESTIVE ENZYMES
Enzymes break down food and let it be digested, and then used. Processed food
has no enzymes. Fruits and vegetables grown in American topsoil in 1996 have
insufficient enzymes for complete breakdown by the body. Any food that has been
cooked has no enzymes. Results: the food doesn't get digested. Some of it just
stays right in there, in the gut and in the blood. (See Enzymes chapter –
The undigested food in the GI tract putrefies and remains in place, blocking the
intestine and giving off toxins and gas as it rots. We've all heard the
statistic that the average American male age 35 has about 5 lbs. of undigested
protein stuck to the intestinal lining.
The rancid fat and putrefying protein in the blood also cause blockage, but in a
different way - actually in two ways. The fats end up as cholesterol stuck to
the inside of arteries, causing blood flow to be blocked. And the other way is
this: undigested protein causes the red blood cells to clump together like
stacks of coins. Thus blood flow is blocked even further, preventing all organs
and tissues from getting oxygen. Lack of oxygen is the #1 factor that promotes
the growth and spread of cancer.
Although there are several good whole-food enzymes available today, Infinity's
digestive enzyme, called Digest-A-Meal, immediately can reverse the stack of
coins mechanism of the blood cells. In addition, it can set to work unblocking
the digestive tract by breaking down the residual proteins which have been
hanging around inside there. Digest-A-Meal is powerful - about 95% of people
tested can see a visible change in their blood sample within 15 minutes! This is
no wild claim.
Normal people need whole food enzymes every day. Cancer people could use three
capsules 3x/day. ! (1 800 572 6204) When it comes to blood detox, the enzymes
issue is fundamental for any expectation of success.
3. COLON DETOX/FLORA
Colon detox is a complete story in itself for which the reader is directed to
the chapter on the Colon (www.thedoctorwithin.com). The bottom line is that
autointoxication can be the initial cause and promoter of any emerging neoplasm.
To disrupt the process, an herbal colon cleanse must be undertaken. The simplest
and most effective program I have found is an herbal blend called Experience:
2-8 caps per day, with a ton of water.
Now that you're eating all this food, you must keep your intestinal good
bacteria levels up. You'll remember that the intestine requires friendly flora,
such as Acidophilus, to help with complete digestion. Flora may be thought of as
the Second Immune System. Infinity has a product called Total Flora which
introduces twelve friendly bacteria into the digestive tract. If you're gonna
stay healthy, you need it. The main contributors to killing off your friendly
bacteria have been antibiotics, antiinflammatories (Motrin, Tylenol, Advil,
etc.), secondary antibiotics (the ones they gave the animals we eat), alcohol,
coffee, drugs, and refined foods. Chronic bad digestion promotes not only
cancer, but also allergies, arthritis, and chronic fatigue.
4. VITAMIN/MINERAL COMPLEX
These are necessary for your cells and tissues to work good. I'll spare you the
details if you promise to read the chapter Ascorbic Acid is Not Vitamin C (www.thedoctorwithin.com)
and also the one on minerals. Skipping over vitamin and minerals would be like
changing your car's oil and leaving the old oil filter in. Come to think of it,
you probably have been skipping this step all your life and that's one of the
main reasons you're in the shape you're in. Not really your fault. We've known
since 1938, when Senate Document 264 came out, that food grown in America was no
longer very good. Forget mega-vitamins - we only need small amounts, but the
vitamins can't be fractionated: they have to be whole food. If you still think
ascorbic acid is Vitamin C, time to do some research. Start with the chapter
Natural vs. Synthetic. Again, some of the cleanest whole food vitamins and most
effective minerals are offered by a little company in Arizona called Infinity.
Specifically, the products are Insure Plus and Infitrim. Also many green drinks
are replete with whole food vitamins and natural antioxidants.
Live, raw foods are also an obvious source of whole food vitamins and naturally
occurring minerals, especially the green foods like wheat grass, barley,
spirulina, and chlorella. The green drinks like Best of Greens are loaded with
Some people are debilitated and can't keep much down. In such cases it is
important that what is taken in be as nutrient dense as possible. Many patients
in this situation sip these sugary little canned drinks from the grocery store,
which actually is something cancer thrives on. You know the ones I mean.
Some of the most nutrient dense meal replacement products include Infitrim and
Definition. Originally designed as weight loss products, it was then found that
overall health and well-being were boosted if the body receives a clean source
of fats, ,protein, and carbohydrates, in addition to enzymes, whole food
vitamins, and chelated minerals on a daily basis.
For colds, flu, and infectious diseases, it is best to eat almost nothing,
according to classical experts like JH Tilden MD. But for chronic terminal
illnesses, the only hope of recovery lies in the possibility of shoring up the
healthy areas and systems of the body so that the body itself can win the
battle. Despite all the claims you've heard, there is no Magic Bullet out there,
either drug or supplement, which can isolate that bad cancer cells and kill them
while leaving the good s cells alone. According to most of the medical
authorities cited hereinunder, cancer can only be overcome by the healing
systems of the body itself. It's an inside job.
Cancer loves sugar. Especially partially digested white sugar, which is called
fermentation. The reason is oxygen. Carbohydrates, or sugars, use up oxygen when
they ferment, as any bootlegger can tell you. That's what the bubbles are. This
oxygen-deprived environment is perfect for cancer - it thrives in it.
Fermentation creates an acidic environment and keeps oxygen away.
A diet of meat and dairy and carbonated drinks is acid-producing. Infinity's
ClO2, as well as drinking alkaline water, can help to neutralize an acidic
environment. Infinity's Lipochromizyme is an important product for digesting
sugars because of its chelated chromium. Chromium, in which 91% of Americans are
deficient, is essential to activate the body's insulin.
Again, an enzyme program will free up the red blood cells, so that they may
actually carry out their #1 function – to carry oxygen to all cells of the body.
This is the newest discovery, for me at least. Muscle wasting (cachexia):
muscles turn into loose string. Ever see that in a cancer patient? Bone
degeneration. Shriveling skin. All these are made of collagen. Even for
non-cancer people, collagen production diminishes as we age. With cancer, the
depletion is more obvious because the body is digesting itself to feed the
cancer. Worse yet, chemotherapy immediately attacks the digestive system, which
is why the patient loses his appetite.
If the patient is to survive, collagen supplementation is critical. Not shark
cartilage or Knox gelatin, but something already assimilable, something that
doesn't need to be broken down first, using up the body's dwindling mineral
reserves in the process. The best example is Calorad: collagen hydrolysat. It's
clean, it's simple, and it's a food. Please see the chapter on collagen.
If you do none of the above, at least give your body the benefit of hydration:
minimum of 2 liters of water per day. No tap water! You can't drink that much?
Poor baby! How will you enjoy being dead? Where did you read that healing
yourself from a serious illness was going to be convenient? The vast majority of
Americans are dehydrated. Any type of blood detox or healing regimen cannot
succeed unless the cells are fully hydrated. Start with one liter and work up to
two. For details, please read the chapter on WATER -(www.thedoctorwithin.com)
LAST CALL - PLACE YER BETS
So that's it. That's the best program I know of for someone in your shoes. I've
looked. There are probably many other worthwhile methods, like beta glucans,
immunocal, 714x, Haelan, MGN-3, the Kelley method, live foods, and ozone, to
name just a few. My goal is simplification and streamlining - no one could
handle taking all the holistic remedies at one time. The total amount of data in
this field is overwhelming, especially to someone who is anxious to get started
on some kind of rational natural healing program. Some information has come my
way in the past few years that I would've missed except that I was forced to
look at it when I lost several people close to me. I'm not saying this is the
only program that will be effective. In the past 75 years there have been
several dozen holistic, non-medical cures for cancer that demonstrated high
rates of success, as cited by Moss, Morris Bealle, John Robbins, and Richard
Walters. Many of them were openly attacked by the vested medical interests
together with their FDA guard dog. Some of these pioneers have been persecuted,
jailed, deported, and even killed when their only crime was discovering and
using an inexpensive, effective anti-cancer agent and trying to tell people
about it. They were healers. Most of us have never heard their names, unless
we've done the research.
There are many clinics in Mexico and a host of low profile alternative therapies
used in Europe as well as here in the U.S. Statistically, some studies say that
overall survival rates are about the same whether the patient chooses
traditional or alternative treatment programs. I don't know if I believe that.
The quality of life, however, is generally better with the alternative route, it
appears to me. In addition, the incidence of real recoveries seems to be
somewhat higher with the alternative approach. And that stands to reason, since
holistic methods try to boost the immune system instead of killing it with
poisonous drugs. Moreover, the holistically-inclined patient may be more
self-reliant and more willing to take personal responsibility and initiative for
healing, rather than just to sit back and expect the "magic of modern
technology" to do all the work with the expectation that the patient can
continue his ongoing program of self-abuse, a passive spectator in the return to
health. A famous healer once remarked that there's a big difference between
being afraid to die and wanting to live.
ALONE AGAIN, NATURALLY
Perhaps the greatest difficulty in embarking on a holistic program for cancer is
not the discipline required by the program itself. Neither is it the time it
required, the money involved, or the newness of the lifestyle. The biggest
obstacle is the solitude of it all - you'll be swimming upstream, by yourself.
Chances are you will not get support from your family doctor, any medical
professionals, or your family. Chances are you will be attacked by any of the
above for not following mainstream slash-and-burn protocols. I have seen many
patients who were initially open to the holistic approach buckle under pressure
from the family to be "sensible" and follow the tried and true. Invariably, they
died on schedule, because they didn't want to "upset anybody." This is one time
in your life that it's OK to upset people, the one time that's it's fine to be
completely selfish. You have a right to your own life, no matter how politically
incorrect that notion becomes. If you actually do the research beginning with
the appended references, it is virtually impossible not to arrive at a similar
conclusion: that mainstream cancer treatment is rarely effective and exists
primarily for the benefit of the cancer industry itself, not you. If you go
along with their program, it is likely that at some point you will learn the
truth of this reality. For most, that point comes too late.
If you suspect there may be some validity to what I'm saying, you owe it to
yourself to investigate it thoroughly on your own before you submit to even the
mildest of chemotherapies. I promise, you will be no match for the masterful
stair stepping of procedures and testing that awaits you, dangling little
improvements with enticements to try this or that drug because "It's really not
that toxic" or the standard "now this won't cure your cancer, but it will slow
it down," or the Oscar-winning "it's OK to take some of your herbs or natural
products along with the chemotherapy/ radiation/ surgery. They won't interfere."
Oncologists are getting increasingly sophisticated at tricking the frightened,
uninformed patient and his family into accepting the standard worthless drugs
and surgical procedures. One of the newest ploys is telling the patient that "we
have something special for you, an experimental drug, just developed." This one
is used with patients who are beginning to question the toxicity of chemo and
need a little extra hope. Then they find out later that the drug was not new at
all, but was one of the standard poisons, like methyltrexate, that has been
around for the past 25 years. By then it's too late, because the patient is so
debilitated he'll do anything the doctor says.
Once you start on chemotherapy, it's almost always downhill from there on
afterwards. You won't even notice your immune system and your vitality ebbing,
leaving you weaker, day by day, until some "crisis" hospitalizes you. At that
point, you're fair game. Bye, bye.
If the reader agrees with nothing I have said so far, but has less than 100%
confidence in the hospital's ability to cure your cancer, get behind this:
follow none of my recommendations. Do nothing: no doctors, no treatment,
mainstream or holistic. Go home and live your life. For the majority of cancers,
no one can tell you with any authority that you are doing anything "high risk."
To the contrary, doctors have known since 1975 that survival rate with no
treatment at all is higher than survival rates with standard chemo/radiation/
surgery. (Lancet, 1975)
There are also no real statistics comparing the effectiveness of mainstream with
holistic alternatives. And we know that mainstream treatment usually doesn't
cure the patient, and worse that the patient's last weeks on earth are often
filled with horrific side effects of ineffective treatment. But many people are
saying OK, I've got cancer, and statistically I may not survive; so be it. If I
die of the cancer, that's all right; I'm just not going to die of the side
effects of ineffective poisons.
Holistic methods focus on working with the body and boosting whatever immune
system the patient still has. Chemotherapy and radiation by contrast, usually
devastate the immune system at the one time in you life that you need it the
most. Larraine Day tells us:
"Cancer is a disease of the immune system. It's caused by a depressed
immune system. How can it possibly be cured by a therapy that further
damages the immune system?"
- Cancer Doesn't Scare Me Any More
CANCER: CAUSE AND CURE
We've been bad. Bad humans. We've polluted our sacred bloodstreams with a
thousand chemicals, seen and unseen, which destroy life. Vaccines, processed
foods, prescription drugs, over-the-counter medications, coffee, alcohol,
tobacco, sugar, air pollution, fluoridated water, pesticides, chlorine and
hundreds of other contaminants in our water, MTBEs in our gasoline - what are we
doing? Looking for a cure for cancer - who are we kidding? A cure for cancer
that will enable us to continue defiling our blood with all the above
substances, right? A cure for cancer that will take all responsibility off the
individual - the old 'I'd rather not participate in my own recovery, if you
don't mind, thank you very much. just lather me with the good stuff...' Mostly
it's our brains that have been polluted and systematically de-evolutionized to
allow us to accept such a sad state of existence as the only life we will ever
know. Cure for cancer? Step one: stop poisoning your blood!
You just found out you got cancer and want to go holistic? Fine. You've got one
chance. Go for it 100% - diet detox, supplements, major cardio exercise,
eliminate all negative input. Starting this minute. Think that'll be overkill?
Well, it might. Problem is, you might already be slipping inexorably toward
cocktails with Elvis.
Don't want to blow sunshine up your afterburner - even with your best efforts at
detox, it may not be enough – no pretending in that department. Cancer is a
serious health problem, generally resulting from years of abuse. No matter what
you do now, statistically you might die. But following a rational holistic plan
may certainly give you your best shot at quality of life. So it's a race – you
work to build your cellular reserves; cancer works to destroy them. Winner takes
Don't want to inconvenience yourself? Fine. Forget the whole thing - just write
your will and party out. Because if you got cancer in the first place, it's
likely you've been overdrawn in the vitality department for a long time. Your
only chance is to sprint from morning to night, doing every single thing
possible to detox your blood, bring more oxygen to the cells, boost your immune
system, and generally try and make up for all those years of self-abuse. Don't
have the energy? No problema - see ya next time around.
Following the above program will offer support for the immune system. It is not
easy and there's certainly no guarantee. It takes total dedication, focus,
energy, and money. Also being lucky enough or persistent enough to find out
exactly which of the dozens of holistic supplements will work for your
particular problem. The above suggestions hopefully will provide a starting
point. Thousands of people have actually recovered, by using various remedies.
Maybe you'll be one of them.
In his master work, Quantum Healing, Deepak Chopra says that remissions
of cancer in "terminal" patients have one thing in common: a major shift in
attitude or consciousness.
Don't be disconsolate when you find out that there are many avenues of holistic
therapeutics. Trying to do all of them together would probably be enough to kill
a horse, even though they're natural approaches. Choose one or two that make the
most sense to you, that you have access to, and whose representatives give you a
feeling of confidence and trust. Then really try the method - do it the exact
way the experts tell you, with consistency, focus, and follow-through. Since
you're a patient, be patient. Don't just give it your best shot; do whatever it
takes - 150%. And daily visualize wholeness and completeness of your entire
body. Do the deed.
What have you got to lose?
- Moss, Ralph PhD The Cancer Industry
- Walters, Richard Options 1993 Avery
- MacTaggart, Lynne Newsletter "What Your Doctor Won't Tell You"
- Carter, James, MD Racketeering in Medicine
- Howell, Edward, MD Enzyme Nutrition Avery
- DeCava, Judith The Real Truth About Vitamins and Antioxidants 1996
- Tilden, JH, MD Toxemia Explained 1926 Kessinger
- CA Journal for Cancer Clinicians Jan 97
- Scanlon, Edward MD Journal of the American Medical Association, Sept. 4, 1991.
- American Cancer Society "Founding Charter"
- Guyton, Arthur, MD Textbook of Medical Physiology 1996
- New England Journal of Medicine, vol 314, 1986
- Shapiro, M MD "Chemotherapy: Snake Oil Remedy?" Los Angeles Times 9 Jan 87
- Moss, Ralph PhD Questioning Chemotherapy 1995
- Chopra, Deepak MD Quantum Healing
- Los Angeles Times 11 Sep 93
- New York Times 3 Mar 94
- Vital Statistics of the United States vol II 1967-1992
- Miller, A et al. Canadian national breast screening study 2. Canadian Med Assn Jour 147:1477
- McDougall, J MD The McDougall Program for Women Penguin Books 1999
- Wright, C MD Screening mammography and public health policy
- Lancet 346:p29, 1995
- Kolata, G Breast cancer screening under 50 New York Times 14 Dec 1997, Dr. Edward Sondik
- Greenberg, David MD "Medicine and Public Affairs" NEJM Mar 1975 292 p 707
- Braverman, Albert MD "Medical Oncology in the 90s" Lancet 1991 337 p901
- American Cancer Society "Cancer Facts and Figures" Atlanta 1995
- Jones, Hardin PhD "Report on Cancer" 1969 Bancroft Library, Cal State U Berkeley
- Robbins, John Reclaiming Our Health 1996
- Abel, Ulrich, PhD "Cytostatic Therapy of Advanced Epithelial Tumors - A Critique" Lancet 10 Aug 1991
- Schimke, Robert "Methotrexate Resistance And Gene Amplification" Cancer 57, May 1986, p1915
- Milner, M HSI Newsletter Apr 1999 p5
- Travis, Lois Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 5 Oct 94 vol 86 no. 19
- Black, Dean PhD Health at the Crossroads Tapestry Press 1988
- Bealle, Morris A. The Drug Story 1948
- Johansson, J MD "High 10 Year Survival Rate in Patients With Early Untreated Prostate Cancer" JAMA Apr 22 1992 vol 257, p 2191
- Day, Larraine MD "Cancer Doesn't Scare Me Any More" video Rockland Press
- Grady, D "Extreme Cancer Surgery Backed" San Jose Mercury News 14 Jan 99 p1
In our regulated society we are not permitted to make claims to consumers in
support of health benefits derived from foods. This means we cannot make specific
statements as to how food-based, non-drug products may help prevent or treat
diseases. If we were to succeed, our government would attempt to re-classify that
food as a drug! Eating any food or a concentrated natural product should be a decision
based on your personal research and understanding. Food-derived antioxidants, minerals
and enzymes play an important role in your health. The information we provide in
this website is for informational purposes only and is not intended as a substitute
for advice from a health care professional. It should not be used for diagnosis
or treatment of any health problem or construed as a prescription of a medication
or other treatment. We cannot and do not claim that the products we offer will
prevent, cure, treat or diagnose a disease in humans or animals. Natural healing
is inherently unpredictable, and results will vary widely.