C is for Cancer
Cancer (or its treatments) kills over half a million people in the U.S. each year, four millions around the world.
Dr. Mercola said:
What is lost in the unemotional statistic of 500,000 cancer deaths per year is how those people died. Dr. Whitaker goes on to say more about the treatment of cancer: In my opinion, conventional cancer therapy is so toxic and dehumanizing that I fear it far more than I fear death from cancer. We know that conventional therapy doesn't work -- if it did, you would not fear cancer any more than you fear pneumonia. It is the utter lack of certainty as to the outcome of conventional treatment that virtually screams for more freedom of choice in the area of cancer therapy. Yet most so-called alternative therapies regardless of potential or proven benefit, are outlawed, which forces patients to submit to the failures that we know don't work, because there's no other choice.
Quoted from: http://www.mercola.com/article/cancer/cancer_options.htm
Dr. Binzel said:
In orthodox medicine, they often speak of cures, but the patients are dead! According to the death certificates, they don't die of cancer, but of heart failure, lung failure, liver failure, or hemorrhage. But what caused these? They are the secondary effects of their treatments for cancer. "We got it all," is a common refrain. "I'm happy to report that we cured him of his disease — just before he died." This is not really a joke. It is the reality of orthodox cancer therapy.
Quoted from the introduction of “Alive and well”, a short ebook on cancer, its treatments and the steady opposition of the medical establishment to all things alternative. You can read it here:
http://www.whale.to/m/binzel2.html
Dr. Levin said:
“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, Marcus Books, 1990
Quoted from: http://darrendixon.supanet.com/deathbydoctoring.htm
Let's hear about someone who had this chemo“therapy”:
Hazel said:
Two years ago, Hazel was diagnosed with breast cancer. She described her chemotherapy as the worst experience of her life. “This highly toxic fluid was being injected into my veins. The nurse administering it was wearing protective gloves because it would burn her skin if just a tiny drip came into contact with it. I couldn’t help asking myself “If such precautions were needed to be taken on the outside, what is it doing to me on the inside?” From 7 pm that evening, I vomited solidly for two and a half days. During my treatment, I lost my hair by the handful, I lost my appetite, my skin colour, my zest for life. I was death on legs.”
Same source http://darrendixon.supanet.com/deathbydoctoring.htm
When boiled down and simplified, the difference between chemotherapy and vitamin C is that while chemotherapy kills everything in its path – cancer cells, healthy cells and immune system – vitamin C and Laetrile (also called vitamin B17, though it's an amygdalin rather than a vitamin) are toxic to cancer cells but nourish healthy cells. The FDA and the medical establishment have done everything (including going against the law and going against specific court order, as well as giving patently false court testimonies) to stop their use. Here is an extract of chapter one of “Alive and well”
http://www.whale.to/m/binzel2.html
This specific segment tells of a court hearing brought on by the FDA against Laetrile to try and make it illegal, claiming that it was toxic. Dr. Binzel was present in order to testify for the defense.
Dr. Binzel said:
When Mr. Coe informed Judge Bohanon that the defense had concluded its testimony, the Judge turned to the FDA attorneys and said, "The court is now prepared to hear your witnesses and view your evidence." One FDA attorney replied, "Your Honor, we don't have any." The rest of the dialogue went like this:
Judge: "You are telling me that you have filed suit in this court that Laetrile is toxic, and you don't have a single witness or a shred of evidence to support such a suit?" Attorney: "That is correct, Your Honor." Judge: "Then why have you filed such a suit?"
Attorney: "Because, Your Honor, Laetrile may be dangerous."
Judge: "Dangerous to whom?"
Attorney: "Dangerous to the Federal Government, Your Honor."
Judge: "How could Laetrile possibly be dangerous to the Federal Government?"
Attorney: "Because, Your Honor, the Government may lose control."
With this the Judge, now obviously angered, slammed down his gavel and said, "Case dismissed!"
As Mr. Coe, Dr. Halstead, Bob Bradford, Betty and I left the court house, we saw a six-foot by four-foot poster on the wall in the lobby. It read in large letters, "BEWARE OF LAETRILE! IT IS TOXIC!" At the bottom, in small print, was the statement, "Must be posted in all Government buildings by order of the Food and Drug Administration of the United States."
Is it possible that the FDA was lying to the people?
It's not only possible, it's old news. The FDA had lied to the people at least once on any given medical subject you may care to mention. When it comes to cancer, everyone in the FDA has been lying their faces off. But when it comes to cancer, most people won't go to the FDA – they'll go to organisms like the American Cancer Society. And of course, the ACS is pushing chemotherapy with pure, unwashed propaganda. They claim that patients should never take more than 1 gram of vitamin C per day (effective cancer treatment starts at 10g/day). They also claim that chamomile is a sedative and that it can cause “fairly common” allergic reactions including difficult breathing! Anyone who knows just a little bit about herbal medicine can testify that the above claim is pure BS. They claim a lot of things, they even have a section called “Chemotherapy: what it is, how it helps”. See for yourself:
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/ETO/content/ETO_1_2X_Chemotherapy_What_It_Is_How_It_Helps.asp
Is it barefaced evil or just stupidity and ignorance? Both, it seems.
The doctor within said:
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 perks 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?
[...]
"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
[...]
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.
[...]
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)
http://thedoctorwithin.com/index_fr.php?page=articles/cancer_patient.php
Dr. Saul said:
It is once again Nobel-prize winning Linus Pauling, PhD plus Ewan Cameron, MD, a Scottish cancer surgeon, who have demonstrated the effectiveness of ten grams (10,000 mg) of vitamin C a day in reversing terminal cancer in thirteen out of 100 patients. These patients were given up as lost by medical authorities. Thirteen out of 100 may not seem like a high percentage of success, but keep in mind that those thirteen are free of the disease as far as can be determined. None were expected to live. Thirteen is infinitely greater than zero. All the vitamin C treated patients have lived, on average, five times as long as controls who did not receive the 10 grams of C. Do not be misled by false media hype against Vitamin C. A pair of politically-motivated Mayo Clinic studies condemning the vitamin are seriously faulted. You will want to refer to Drs. Cameron and Pauling's book, Cancer and Vitamin C, revised edition (1993) for the full story. There is no substitute for the truth.
Of course 10,000 milligrams of vitamin C a day is greatly more than what
the federal government maintains that an average person needs. A reading of The Healing Factor by biochemist Irwin Stone (1979) will explain to you why we need so very much vitamin C, why it should indeed be normal to consume many grams of the vitamin a day, and why the lack of C is responsible for our human race's present state of illness. Irwin Stone, by the way, is the person who first got Dr. Pauling interested in vitamin C in the first place. For improved quality and length of life, the key is sufficient quantity of C. More orange juice just won't do it.
[...]
Additional vitamin C vs. cancer references are available through your local library. Request assistance in locating William McCormick's papers, especially the blandly-titled but excellent "Have We Forgotten the Lesson of Scurvy" and "Ascorbic Acid as a Chemotherapeutic Agent." Dr. McCormick shows that cancer symptoms and vitamin C deficiency symptoms overlap. Scurvy, which is obvious vitamin C deficiency, is traced to medical writings as far back as1609. The similarity between scurvy and cancer is so great that it is incredible that billions of dollars of cancer research in the United States has consistently missed it.
Residential treatment for cancer by nutritional means is readily available in Mexico, just south of the US border in Tijuana. Odd, isn't it, that Americans have to flee the land of the free and home of the brave to get freedom of choice in cancer therapy? That's free trade for you. American medical doctor and nutrition PhD, Frank Watts, MD, is one of a number of nonconformist physicians who have employed a therapeutic program which includes 20,000 mg of vitamin C daily plus Laetrile, vitamin A, vitamin B-complex, and strict vegetarian diet, among other things. His experience has revealed that about 70% of 600 terminal cancer patients have responded in some definite way to the treatment
[...]
Other Vitamins Against Cancer
B-complex vitamins individually and collectively appear to be useful against
cancer, in prevention as well as treatment. B-complex vitamins (and vitamin C) are water-soluble, easily-lost-under-stress vitamins. There is ever growing evidence that stress itself is a major factor in cancer, and it makes sense, as stress depletes the body of B-vitamins and C. Only in theory does the "balanced diet" that all of us are supposed to be getting every day supply "ample" quantities of these and all other vitamins. But no realistic allowance is made for the very real psychological and physiological demands that each person is daily subjected to. This is all the more true for a cancer patient.
In America, vitamin deficiency is the rule, not the exception. This has been the case throughout our youth, since our birth, and even during gestation. According to Nutrition Action Healthletter, November 1993, researchers at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia found that the mothers of children with cancer were less likely to have eaten fruits and vegetables, and were less likely to have taken multivitamins during the first six weeks of their pregnancy than mothers of healthy children. This resulting insufficient intake of folate, one of the B-vitamins, appears to be a major cause of what are called primitive neuroectodermal tumors.
Vitamin B6 has been found to be as effective, at least, as the drug usually used to treat recurrent bladder cancer, says American Family Physician (17:3, p. 293). It was found that many bladder patients were deficient in B6. No big surprise there, as the 1975 MRCA survey showed that, of adults 19 and over, 99% got less than the US RDA of B6.
William McCormick, mentioned earlier, cites researchers who found that all cancer patients they tested were deficient in vitamin C by approximately 4,500 mg. When the US Recommended Dietary Allowance for "C" is 60 mg, how can one miss the need for megavitamin dosages? The US Food and Nutrition Board manages to just fine. Item: they raised the vitamin C RDA for smokers to a whopping, astronomical, all-time soaring high... of 100 milligrams.
It would be a tragic mistake to center any discussion of cancer on a single vitamin. Research will continue to confirm that all nutrients, and most certainly all the vitamins are required to prevent and to stop cancer. After all, which wheel on your car can you afford to do without? Which wing on your airplane can we leave off next time you fly?
It is our population-wide but medically disavowed vitamin deficiency that is almost certainly the single most overlooked predisposing cause of cancer. We can either decrease stress or increase our vitamin supplementation, or preferably do both.
Quoted from: http://www.doctoryourself.com/cancer.html
Wanna see some results? Here they are, as an analysis of Binzel's patient outcomes compared to American Cancer Society's statistics, from Dr. Binzel's book, Chapter Twelve (please note we are talking about primary i.e. non-metastatic cancer only).
Dr. Binzel said:
[O]ut of 180 patients, over a period of 18 years, 87.3% did not die from their disease. Even if I concede that the 7 patients who died of "cause unknown" did, indeed, die from cancer, I am still looking at 16.7% of patients who died from their cancer and 83.3% who did not. One hundred and thirty-eight of these patients are still alive. Fifty-eight of these patients (42%) have a follow-up of between two years and four years. Eighty of these patients (58%) have a follow-up of between five and eighteen years. It is important to realize that this is ongoing. By the end of 1992, some new patients would come into the two-year category, and those in the four-year category would move into the five-year category.
I now ask you to compare my results with the statistics of the American Cancer Society for primary cancer. The American Cancer Society tells us that in primary cancer, with early diagnosis and early treatment with surgery, and/or radiation and/or chemotherapy, eighty-five percent (85%) of the patients will die from their disease within five years.
'Nuff said.
http://www.whale.to/m/binzel13.html
If you don't mind medical jargon, try:
http://www.garynull.com/Documents/vitaminc-cancer.htm
It's a review of over 90 studies regarding cancer and vitamin C, often in combination with other supplements. In his own words:
Dr. Gary Null said:
[W]hat follows is not anecdotal evidence; it is scientific evidence. We can now move beyond the stage of allowing quackbusters, apologists for special interest groups, and other adherents of the flat-earth school of intellectual inquiry to maintain that there's no evidence of the disease-fighting value of nutrients. Because, quite simply, there is, and here it is.
This review article notes that approximately 90 studies have been done on the role of vitamin C in cancer prevention, with most finding statistically significant effects. Protective effects have been shown for cancers of the pancreas, oral cavity, stomach, esophagus, cervix, rectum, breast, and lung.
To only cover one fifth of the material available, I would have to do a post twenty times the length of this one. Cancer is surely one of the (if not THE) most researched medical subjects ever, and it seems to be due to a mixture of nutritional deficiencies, stress, pollutants (including those mixed in foods as “ingredients”), and very significantly depressed immune systems. Of course there are “expressways” to cancer – such as aspartame, saccharine, and McDonald's.
Many of the above links recommend a same basic approach: reducing or cutting out altogether meats, sugars (white flour included), exercise and generous nutrient supplementation. But the fact is that people have been repeatedly arrested, harassed, threatened, blackmailed, wrongfully sued and even jailed because they dared offer other people efficient solutions to life-threatening illnesses. Let us remember that the average spending of patients for cancer treatments is over 100, 000$ - that by itself might help explain the unwillingness of the medical establishment to find an actual cure. But also, if the STS feed on pain and fear, cancer patients must be five-star buffets for them. This is one of the (many) shameful little secrets of the FDA.
Over half a million people in the U.S. and four millions around the world are dying either needlessly, or in pain and fear that are not necessary. The alternative health movement is growing, and inciting more and more people to be critical of the government. With the CODEX legislation in the works, the medical establishment will try to both choke to death and co-opt alternative medicine. There will be a battle over this, as over so many things, and I believe it may cause at least some people to wake up. Tell me if I'm overly optimistic, but it seems the elite's plan is unravelling - because of this and that, and information that is now easily accessible over the net, people are prodding the beast and seeing it. When someone realizes the government and famous institutions lied to them regarding a disease that could have killed them, are they still as likely to accept as truth Bush's word on, say, foreign affairs? Methinks not.
