Cancer: causes and cures

[alchemy]

Don't know if anyone else out there follows Jon Rappoport. He has an interesting take on things most of the time, with a focus on drugs/pharma industry/disease, etc. This is an extract from a recent email; he has changed his site considerably and more of the information he offers now seems to come at a price:

MURDER AT THE US NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE (NCI) by Jon Rappoport
www.nomorefakenews.com

Daniel Haley's brilliant book, Politics in Healing, recounts how
NCI's 1991 clinical trial of the innovative and "alternative" cancer
medicine, hydrazine sulfate (HS), was rigged.

Rigged to fail.

A spectacularly promising medicine, HS had shown good results in
trials at Harbor/UCLA hospital and in Russia. NCI felt obligated to
test the drug. But there was a catch.

The drug's discoverer, Dr. Joseph Gold, had found that HS reacted
badly if patients were taking other drugs, especially tranquilizers.
Several warnings were given to NCI before it began its test. The
warnings were explicit. Patients could DIE if they were taking
tranquilizers.

It turned out that none of the NCI patients were warned about this.
It turned out that 94% of those patients were in fact on
tranquilizers.

Barry Tice, an investigator for the US General Accounting Office
(GAO), looked into the NCI trial of hydrazine sulfate after it was
over. He called Dr. Gold and told him he had found a "smoking gun."
There was an internal NCI memo which
showed that NCI was well aware of the problems involved in the drug
combinations.

The GAO did not back up its own investigator. The final GAO report on
the NCI clinical trials of hydrazine sulfate simply accused NCI of
sloppy bookkeeping.

In the June 1995 issue of the Journal of Clinical Oncology, a letter
from the NCI was published. The letter stated that NCI had omitted
mentioning, in its own published account of its cancer study, that
94% of the patients had been on tranquilizers. But, because this
letter did NOT mention how dangerous that situation was, it looked
like NCI was simply admitting to a technical and unimportant mistake.
A clerical error.

So what did happen to the patients in the NCI hydrazine sulfate
study?

They ALL DIED.

The drug, hydrazine sulfate, was judged to be totally ineffective,
and thus a competitor for chemotherapy dollars was eliminated.
Hydrazine sulfate is a cheap, widely available, unpatentable
substance. No profit there.

Was this story splashed across the front pages of major newspapers in
America? Did the "great men" of television, those holy anchors, insist
on covering it with the emphasis it deserved? Of course not.

The story was originally dug out and published in Penthouse, by
reporter Jeff Kamen, who should have won a Pulitzer for it, but won
nothing.

And NCI has a rule that none of its patients in clinical trials can
have their names revealed.

(THERE ARE OTHER SUBSTANCES AND FOODS WHICH ARE INCOMPATIBLE WITH
HYDRAZINE SULFATE AND MAY CAUSE GREAT HARM AND DEATH. ONE SHOULD KNOW
ALL ABOUT THIS BEFORE DECIDING TO EXPERIMENT WITH THE DRUG.)

There is more to this incredible story. Penthouse publisher Bob
Guccione's wife, Kathy Keeton, who was the founder of Longevity, a
magazine that was part of the Guccione empire, was diagnosed with
"galloping breast cancer" in 1995. She was given 6 weeks to live.

She refused chemotherapy and became a VERY high-profile case of a
person taking hydrazine sulfate instead.

She also chose radiation to reduce one of her many tumors--a growth
around her bile duct. Dr. Gold said the dose of radiation should be
small, because hydrazine sulfate would enhance the effect of the
radiation. But the radiologist gave her the full dose instead, burned
her liver and caused later scarring.

Overall, Keeton recovered. In fact, a year after her predicted death
date, her cancer was in full remission. The hydrazine sulfate was a
remarkable success.

Guccione ran ads in Penthouse, asking for families of the dead
victims in the NCI experiment to come forward and join a class-action
suit against NCI.

Guccione estimated there had been 600 victims in the NCI clinical
test.

In October 1997, Kathy Keeton went into a major and well-respected NY
hospital for surgery. From all accounts, this operation had nothing to
do with cancer. Amazingly, complications occurred. She died.

Most of America assumed she had succumbed to cancer. Further "proof"
that hydrazine sulfate did not work.

Predictably, the FDA has gotten into the act. On April 23, 1998, that
criminal agency raided a distributor of hydrazine sulfate, Great Lakes
Metabolics, in Rochester, Minnesota. In 2000, the FDA shut down the
company that supplies hydrazine sulfate to Great Lakes, and Great
Lakes went out of business.

In 1996, when hydrazine sulfate (HS) was still very much in the
public spotlight, Dr. Gold states he received 20 phone calls in one
day from doctors at Sloan Kettering, the world's number one center
for toxic chemotherapy research and treatment. These doctors wanted
to obtain HS on the sly for their patients. Gold states that roughly
2/3 of the patients were from the doctors' families. And six of these
doctors had refused to give HS to other patients at Sloan Kettering.
The phrase, scum of the Earth, comes to mind.

Author Haley offers a dozen patient testimonials re HS. They are
anecdotes, to be sure, but they are remarkable.

Example: "Oncologist report in today. No cancer anywhere, after two
and a half months on HS and vitamins/minerals and supplements. They
have no idea where cancer went."

Example: "Seven weeks on hydrazine sulfate. Brain and lung lesions
disappeared."

Example: "I purchased some HS for my sister a few weeks ago. Too
early to tell, but she went from near death at the hospital on chemo
to a campground some place, with a fishing pole."

I don't make recommendations for medicines. HS studies at Harbor/UCLA
and in Russia did not cure everyone, not by a long shot. Of course,
there are questions about those protocols too, because ordinary foods
like raisins are incompatible with HS--and who knows what the patients
were fed. And, on top of that, no well-designed studies have ever been
done using HS on patients in early stages of cancer, where the results
might be even better.

HS has been defamed by monsters. "First do no harm" has been turned
into "destroy." Those responsible for this terrible crime should be
arrested, shackled, and shown on national television on the steps at
NCI. NCI should be closed and fumigated.

More notes on HS (hydrazine sulfate)...

One session of conventional chemo costs enough to pay for 10 years of
treatment with HS.

In 1973, a doctor with a terminal Hodgkins patient approached Dr.
Gold for help. Gold recommended a dosage level. In a few weeks, the
patient was up and around, not dead. By October of 1973, 1000
patients in the US were on HS.

Dean Burke, head of cell chemistry at NCI, said in 1974 that HS was
"the most remarkable anticancer agent I have come across in my 45
years experience in cancer...this material is so cheap because it is
made by the trainload for industrial purposes."

In September 1973, Sloan Kettering (SK), the most prestigious cancer
center in the world, started an HS study on terminal patients. The
lead physician, Dr. Manuel Ochoa, had agreed to give each patient 60
mg a day for 3 days and then 60 mg 3 times a day after that---but Dr.
Gold learned Ochoa was changing the protocol drastically---he was
giving 1 mg the first day, then 2 mg the next day, and so on,
building up to a top of 30 mg----except in some cases he actually
gave patients 120-190 mg a day---brutal overdoses.

In 1975 SK announced HS was worthless.

Dr. Gold then did a study for Calbiochem, a drug company. 70% of 84
patients gained weight and had less pain. HS was, in fact, designed
to alleviate wasting away in the first place. 17% of the patients
showed tumor regression or a stabilization of their condition for one
year.

In 1975, Russian researchers published two positive study findings on
HS.

In 1976, the American Cancer Society (ACS) put HS on its dreaded
blacklist of "unapproved" cancer treatments. ACS neglected to mention
it owned 50% of a competing and highly toxic cancer drug, 5FU.

By 1978, the FDA was cracking down on HS. 5000 patients in the US
were on the medicine. The FDA falsely stated that HS caused bone
marrow toxicity. In fact, conventional chemo---approved by the
FDA---destroys bone marrow.

Jeff Kamen, the reporter who got the HS story out in Penthouse? Here
is how he became interested in the first place. His mother Erna came
back from cancer with HS. She gained 23 pounds and was doing much
better. Then her doctor convinced her to stop HS and go on an
experimental chemo drug. In five days, she was dead.

JON RAPPOPORT www.nomorefakenews.com

 

[Sandy]

C is for Cancer

I have read some articles connecting breast cancer to underwires in women's bras. The articles did not appear in main stream medical articles. Is there a connection, I think so? There has been an up surge in lung cancer which may be caused by the DU that has and is being used by the US. I have no electrical background, but I do read articles about the danger of RF, microwave and other types of electromagnetic waves. Brain cancer and assorted other cancers have been linked to the various waves. Now to my supposition, could the location of metal underwires in bras right over the lung area in women be contributing to the increase in lung cancer by collecting and directing the waves into the lung area? I have no way to prove or disprove this theory, but if this a harebrained thought, please let me know.
Sandy

 

[knowledge_of_self]

Lung and breast cancer possible connection to underwire

Hi Sandy
Could you please post the link to the article(s) in discussion here? I am very interested because I have to admit that I HATE wearing bras. I can never get used to them, and they have always been a source of great discomfort. But I have always been told that it is ‘support' for the breasts. And also that medically it supposed to help, so they won't 'sag' when you get older and such. So I am very much interested in this theory.

Thanks in advance for posting the link(s).
Nina

 

[aurora]

Lung and breast cancer possible connection to underwire

I had also read (I can't recall where) that wearing bras has an adverse effect on the blood circulation. And also the use of deodorants could cause cancer.http://www.brafree.org/bfresearch.htm This link mentions one published study on the effect of bras on breast cancer.
http://www.breastcancer.org/research_deodorant.html This link mentions of an inconclusive study linking parabens in deodorants having been found in brest cancer tissues. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=38619 This link talks about aluminum salts found in deodorants may mimick as estrogens once absorbed by the skin and that further study is needed in this field.

 

[Sandy]

Lung and breast cancer possible connection to underwire

Hi Nina,

Here are two sites. They both quote studies by a husband and wife team the Singers. They did extensive research.
www.chetday.com/breastcancerandbras.htm
www.worldchiropracticalliance.org/tcj/1996/jan/jan1996d.htm

I have read articles about the effects of deodorants and soy products on breast tissue. There are many factors including heredity which we can not control, but the ones we can control, we should.

Sandy

 

[Marie]

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.

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

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

“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”:

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.

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 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

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).

[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:

[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.

 

[Cyre2067]

C is for Cancer

I mean, old news - i read back in the mid 90s a potential cure was found, researchers in arizona i believe were cultivating several herb samples brought back from the amazon with potential to cure or fight off the disease when the FDA raided their lab, took all their samples, computers, data etc. Fined and Released all the participants. Later they moved their research to europe and that was the last i heard of it. I could be wrong, or it could have been just internet quasi-news but it wouldnt surprise me either way.

Same reason marijuana has been attacked left and right. There's no scientific basis that it's dangerous or even toxic. It's impossible to overdose, and has never been attributed as the sole cause of death. It has many therapeutic applications, anti-seizure property's(anti-seizure drugs have many side affects, some including spontaneous death in like 1% of people who take the drug), appetite simulant (for AIDs/chemo patients), anti-anxiety applications, i could go on. Bottom line is the FDA is stocked with ex-pharma employees, some of which still have stock in said companies and are in the business of pushing "legal" drugs b/c they can make a sh*t-ton of money doing it.

 

[moonwalker]

C is for Cancer

Thanks Marie there is some great information there. I particular liked the talk about vitamin C as it confirms everything I suspected. I've known about the benefits of 'mega' doses of vitamin C for some years now and just last month I came down with a nast cold/flu like virus. I self medicated by using 2 grams of vitamin C an hour and was fine 24 hours later.

I have also heard interesting reports about hydrogen peroxide therapy been used with cancer patients via an intravenous drip.

 

[Marie]

C is for Cancer

Cyre, about this plant, it's definitely got its place in the top 15 censored of our century! Not only it can be used for everything you mentioned, migraines, MS-related muscle cramps and who knows how many other medicinal uses, but it could also run the petrochemical & logging industries into the ground.

I am sure you already know this, but in case somebody on the forum doesn't: by using it industrially as was once done, we could produce biodegradable plastics, and as much paper as we want without cutting down any trees. Doing this might literally have pulled America out of the Great Depression! Anyway those interested in the subject might like the Jack Herer page, http://www.jackherer.com/index.html :)

I self medicated by using 2 grams of vitamin C an hour and was fine 24 hours later.

I believe it - I have seen for myself the difference in health and well-being that vitamin C can bring on. Here in Canada, all the bottles have "for therapeutic use only" and "for adults only"(500mg) written on them. They have some nerve!

About hydrogen peroxide therapy, I've read only a little bit about it - If it can do all that it's reported to, it's a panacea. What I've read on it came from highly unreliable sources, but it's intriguing to say the least. Anybody ever tried it, or heard from someone who did?

 

[Rhansen]

C is for Cancer

A friend of mine has gone thru two rounds of chemo and also suffers from diabetes and is morbidly obese. She follows her doctors advice to the letter and IMO that is her biggest problem. I was looking at the dietary recommendations given to her (Eli Lilly stamped all over it) and was astounded. They advise eating mostly simple carbohydrates - which drive up blood sugar, that way she will need more insulin injections to control it. Seems like the doctors/pharmaceutical co. are setting up some job security.

I've known for quite some time that vitamin C (among others) is good for PREVENTING certain ilnesses but was not aware that it could be used as a treatment or that the establishment was so against it.

I also found the recommendation for a vegetarian diet interesting, I did a low carb diet (only carbs I ate were from fruits/veggies - less than 60 grams/day of carbohydrate, adjusted for fiber content) for a few years and my bloodwork was very good, contrary to what I was told to expect. Triglycerides went from 96 to 27, HDL/LDL ratio improved (don't remember the numbers anymore) and total cholesterol was at 185. I don't have a problem with a vegan diet except that is is difficult to obtain "complete protiens" from such. I also remember reading (forgot where) that cancer cells cannot survive without sugar, when on a low carb diet your body will convert fat into glucose so the only advantage may be in keeping blood glucose levels low (doable on any diet). Seems to me the advantage to a vegetarian diet would be in the variety of phytochemicals taken in - many of which have antioxidant properties.

 

[moonwalker]

C is for Cancer

This topic made me question what I would do if I had cancer. Despite educating myself on alternative therapies, one question remains unanswered. Would I take the chemo? What worries me is that I might. If you're a terminal cancer patient in pain day in and day out with family, friends and doctors constantly telling you that the only chance you have is chemotherapy, well the pressure you're put under must be staggering. Even when you look at the numbers concerning chemo recovery and then you look at what are potentially the promising results of alternative treatments I find myself still believing that chemotherapy is probably the best option.

It worries me at how deeply this belief is ingrained. Yet what motivates me to rid myself of it is and I quote Micheal Topper here:

"When they induce belief against what is objectively true, they have "eaten" the light-knowledge of the person who has chosen blind belief over fact! When you believe a lie, you have allowed the eating of your energy of awareness! When you do not take the time and trouble to check things out for yourself, to do the research, to compare, to network, to get a consensus, you have given away your power. You have failed in the creative act of learning".

 

[Laura]

More Evidence Sugar Feeds Cancer

http://www.mercola.com/2006/jul/18/more_evidence_sugar_feeds_cancer.htm

Growing tumor cells can crowd out other cells and cut them off from oxygen-carrying blood vessels, necessary for their survival. When this happens, some cancer cells have developed the ability to bypass the need for oxygen and instead switch to the glycolytic pathway, which they use even when oxygen is restored.

Researchers from the Harvard Medical School have now found that blocking one of the glycolytic pathway's enzymes, LDHA, may be an effective anti-cancer therapy.

The researchers shut down glycolysis in breast cancer cells by blocking LDHA and implanted the cells in mice. Among the LDHA-deficient mice, only two died, one at 16 weeks and the other at 18 weeks, and 80 percent were still living at the end of the four-month study.

In contrast, the control mice, which had tumor cells with a working glycolytic pathway, died at 10 weeks or before.

The researchers concluded that LDHA may be a weak point in the glycolytic pathway, and knocking out the pathway could be an effective way to fight cancer.

 

[Ronnie]

More Evidence Sugar Feeds Cancer

INDEED! Laure.... :)

Right now I have a friend that just had a tumor remover from his brain, the size of a shooter marble. Three weeks before the surgery they blocked off the veins that fed the tumor and CUT all Sugar in his diet.

Also this from Hulda:

Pain Killing: http://www.drclark.net/info/painkilling.htm


Reducing pain is the first and most important need for any cancer sufferer. It is a patients right to have pain relief. You may be in excruciating pain, and on morphine because no other painkiller "touches it." Or you may be stoically "putting up" with it, not sleeping, barely able to get up from your chair to get to the bathroom. Pain is the true master of us all. It even takes away our initiative to get well. If a cancer sufferer has decided to give up the battle, this wish should be understood and re

 

[Laura]

Teen cancer patient seeks to stop judge's treatment order

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/S/SOU_SICK_TEEN_VAOL-?SITE=WDUN&SECTION=US&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

By SONJA BARISIC
Associated Press Writer

NORFOLK, Va. (AP) -- A 16-year-old cancer patient was headed to court Tuesday with his lawyers to try to block a judge's order requiring him to report to a hospital the same day for treatment as doctors deem necessary.

A juvenile court judge on Monday denied a request by lawyers for Starchild Abraham Cherrix and his parents to stay his order pending an appeal in a higher court, said John Stepanovich, attorney for Jay and Rose Cherrix.

Lawyers also asked the Accomack County Circuit Court to take over the case and grant the stay, and a hearing was set for noon Tuesday in that court, Stepanovich said.

Abraham and his parents will appear at the hearing with their lawyers, Stepanovich said. He said the Circuit Court was aware that the order required Abraham to be at Children's Hospital of the King's Daughters in Norfolk - about 80 miles from the courthouse - by 1 p.m. Tuesday.

"I'll fight until I do die. I'm not going to let it go," Abraham said Monday by phone from his home in Chincoteague on Virginia's Eastern Shore.

"I would rather die healthy and strong and in my house than die in a hospital bed, bedridden and unable to even open my eyes," said Abraham, who was so weakened by three months of chemotherapy last year that at times he could barely walk.

He refused a second round of chemotherapy when he learned early this year that his Hodgkin's disease, a cancer of the lymph nodes, was active again, choosing instead to go on a sugar-free, organic diet and take herbal supplements under the supervision of a clinic in Mexico. A social worker then asked a judge to require the teen to continue conventional treatment.

"I've got nothing to lose by what I'm doing," Abraham said. "I truly do believe that this (alternative treatment) is going to cure me."

Also Monday, Virginia Attorney General Bob McDonnell filed a brief in support of a stay.

"The attorney general believes Abraham Cherrix deserves the right to appeal this decision to the Circuit Court prior to his undergoing medical treatment," said J. Tucker Martin, spokesman for McDonnell.

The family is legally entitled to a new trial in Circuit Court, said Stepanovich, who said he also would appeal to higher courts if necessary. "If we're forced to go through with the order, then there's no way to undo the chemotherapy and radiation and essentially that would moot our statutory right to appeal," he said.

Abraham's father said he was confident that "a judge somewhere will stop this madness that's going on." If a stay is not granted, the family will "search our consciences and do what's right," Jay Cherrix said.

In his order Friday, Judge Jesse E. Demps also found Jay and Rose Cherrix neglectful for allowing their son to pursue alternative treatment. He required them to continue sharing custody of Abraham with the Accomack County Department of Social Services, as he previously had ordered.

Social Services officials have declined to comment, citing privacy laws.

Parents don't always know what is medically best for their children, said Art Caplan, chairman of the Department of Medical Ethics and director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania.

"At the end of the day, the government's obligation is to protect the interests of those not quite old enough yet to really make their own choices," Caplan said. "If this was a 25-year-old who said I didn't want to do this, there would be no case, no issue, no story."

However, the judge's order could be difficult to enforce, Caplan said.

"I don't think they're going to want to shackle Abraham to the table and try to give him chemotherapy," he said. "If he's uncooperative, he could wind up not getting treated. It's hard for me to imagine the state police holding him in a straight jacket."

Abraham Cherrix: http://www.abrahamsjourney.com

 

[Marie]

Teen cancer patient seeks to stop judge's treatment order

Western medicine apparently has a PR problem, and will "fight back" in any way it sees fit...

From Gunpoint medicine

Public trust in conventional medicine has plummeted to such an all-time low that the industry is now resorting to the threat of violence in order to market its services. Gunpoint medicine is alive and well in Seattle, Washington, where county law enforcement officers, prompted by Child Protective Services (CPS), arrested and jailed 34-year-old Tina Marie Carlsen for her "crime" of rescuing her infant from overzealous hospital staff who demanded they perform kidney surgery on the infant.

Terrorized by the incident, charged with second-degree kidnapping of her own child, and threatened with bail of $500,000, Tina Carlsen was jailed for several days, during which she was unable to provide lifesaving mother's milk to her baby (which is crucial for a child's brain and immune system). She has still not been allowed physical contact with her infant son.

Carlsen's child was taken from her by Child Protective Services after she refused to drug her infant with doctor-prescribed medications in preparation for surgery to implant kidney dialysis devices. She was also reportedly threatened by a nephrologist (a kidney specialist), who, according to relatives, demanded, "You do what I tell you to do, or I will have the police at the door, taking that baby from you."

And that's exactly what happened: The doctor called Child Protective Services, and CPS won a court battle to take custody of the child based entirely on Carlsen's refusal to submit the child to conventional surgery. When Carlsen rescued her own child from the Children's Hospital and Regional Medical Center, a statewide Amber Alert was issued, which mobilized law enforcement to arrest the mother. Initially, the alert claimed the child was in "imminent danger," but this was later contradicted by hospital staff members who issued a statement admitting the child was not in imminent danger.

"This mother's rights have been annihilated," said Kelly Meinig, the president of Citizens for Safe Birth, a non-profit consumer health organization. "What's so scary is this could happen to any of us. All this family wanted was the ability to make an informed decision."

Gunpoint medicine

This incident is the latest example of state-sponsored medical terrorism where parents who do not submit to narrowly-defined "treatments" promoted by conventional medicine are branded as criminals, arrested at gunpoint, jailed and forcibly separated from their children by Child Protective Services. A previous case of medical terrorism involved a Texas teenager who was kidnapped by authorities and forced to undergo toxic chemotherapy treatments that her parents desperately insisted on avoiding.

See State-sponsored medical terrorism: Texas authorities arrest parents, kidnap their teenage daughter, and force her through chemotherapy against her will.

Conventional medicine, characterized by toxic pharmaceuticals, radical surgical procedures, rampant bribery, corruption and relentless disease mongering and "sick care" profiteering, is increasingly being enforced by gunpoint in the United States. Parents who wish to protect their children from the dangers of chemotherapy, surgery or dangerous prescription drugs may find themselves accused of kidnapping their own children simply by rescuing them from the hands of surgeons and oncologists who stand to profit from every procedure performed.

The threat of violence is not foreign to the promoters of conventional medicine, as the FDA has been the architect of several armed raids against doctors, nutritional supplement companies and even a church. Such raids include the "B vitamin" raid on the clinic of Dr. Jonathan Wright, the "CoQ10" raid on Highland Laboratories, the El Cajon pet food store raid (the owner committed the "crime" of saying that vitamins were good for pets) and multiple, armed "terror-style" raids against the Life Extension Foundation, among many others. The FDA has confiscated "dangerous" products like flaxseed oil, herbal tea, vitamin C and CoQ10, all in its quest to save the public from the terrible dangers of nutritional medicine.

Disrupts profits, go to jail

Far from being an industry that seeks to help patients, modern-day medicine is a profit-seeking industry that depends on sustained sickness to generate profits for drug companies, hospitals and diagnostic equipment manufacturers. Police officers, Sheriffs and even U.S. Marshals are routinely recruited by conventional medicine "enforcers" to terrorize selected targets in order to send a message to the rest of the population that they must submit to the treatments of conventional medicine, even when such treatments are provably harmful to patients or based on fraudulent science and deceptive marketing claims. Related book:


Dangerous Medicine Message Board

Bulletin board site for posting your horror stories about harmful prescription drugs, hospital stays, surgical procedures and medicine gone bad. Post your true story and read others now! The tactics of such campaigns mirror those of terrorist cells, which rely on violence or the threat of violence to achieve a political goal.
Similarly, the Bush Administration, through its so-called "New Freedom Initiative on Mental Health" hopes to impose mandatory mental health screening on all U.S. children -- a thinly-veiled attempt to boost Big Pharma profits even further by drugging millions of children with expensive psychotropic drugs, including amphetamines like Ritalin and antidepressant drugs known to promote suicidal behavior.

Consumer backlash gains strength

The use of these tactics helps explain why critics of conventional medicine describe these times as, "The Dark Ages of medicine." FDA actions are increasingly seen as oppressive and even tyrannical by an increasing number of patients and doctors, and the public's trust of pharmaceutical companies, who have been caught inventing fictitious diseases and misleading federal regulators about drug safety trials, is at an all-time low.
A consumer backlash against the Police State tactics of conventional medicine is gaining momentum as people and lawmakers alike realize that no American is truly free if they are not free to choose a system of medicine that they believe offers them the most effective solutions for health challenges. Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tx) has introduced the Health Freedom Protection Act (H.R. 4282), a bill that would help rein in the censorship of the FDA and finally allow nutritional supplement manufacturers to tell the truth about the scientifically-validated health benefits of their products. See FDA tyranny and the censorship of cherry health facts to learn more.

Other health freedom efforts now underway include campaigns to ban direct-to-consumer drug advertising and end the monopoly on drug prices. Organizations such as the Life Extension Foundation and Commercial Alert are supporting grassroots efforts to end the FDA's reign of terror, while many of the FDA's own drug safety scientists like Dr. David Graham are working from inside the agency to affect meaningful reform.