That's one of the best sites for cancer info. The information on the front page is very clear and concise.
What good is it if we all understand the deceptions behind Lyme treatment, yet ignore the deceptions behind cancer treatment? Cancer is way more common than Lyme, with over 40% of Americans getting it in their lifetime.
Posted by lou (Member # 81) on :
Conventional cancer treatments have not gotten much better in the last 30 years, are still not curing a lot of people. Meanwhile the number of cases has vastly increased in the last 100 years from 1 out of 10 to 1 out 3.
So, I agree that current thinking doesn't inspire confidence.
However, neither do some of the althernatives mentioned at that website. They have no proof of these claims. People who got laetrile still died, like Steve McQueen.
Maybe there are alternatives, but you have to watch out for althernative hype too.
Posted by dmc (Member # 5102) on :
James, you'll appreciate this. I reada book by the MD in the video I posted on thyroid.
his book on iodine states that the proper dose of iodine helps prevent cancer
wonder if that's why so many cancers now
Posted by James1979 (Member # 31926) on :
dmc - which book are you referring to? I'm actually interested in reading another book about iodine. People don't realize how important it is!
Yeah, the Japanese eat tons of iodine, and they have the lowest rates of cancers.
Lou - I agree with you that maybe not all of them are great. I haven't studied them all yet, but I'm hoping to soon.
But the big question is: WHY are chemo, radiation, and surgery touted as the best methods and SAFE... but rife, IV ozone, the Gerson Therapy, etc, are considered too dangerous to be practiced in the US???!!!
I don't think anybody has ever died while on the Gerson Therapy, yet you have to go to Mexico if you want to go to a Gerson clinic, because it's supposedly too dangerous to be practiced in the USA. Meanwhile hundreds of people are being killed every day by the FDA-approved "therapies", yet they are considered the safest?? And the whole time the FDA is pretending to protect us from the dangerous, unproven methods!
If we did a poll here on this forum, I bet you over 80% of the members know someone who has died from chemo or radiation "therapies". NOT from cancer, but from the FDA-approved "therapies". Yet somehow all the natural alternative therapies, which in reality are very safe, are claimed to be too dangerous to be practiced in the USA.
If someone doesn't notice that there's a problem with the system, then they should open their eyes a little more.
Posted by James1979 (Member # 31926) on :
I highly recommend the Burzynski Movie to everyone, so that they can learn how corrupt the system is.
This is especially important if you have a loved one who has cancer.
Posted by TerryK (Member # 8552) on :
Another example of the government controlling treatments and ridding the AMA and big pharma of competition.
Look into the Hoxsey cure (U.S) and Essiac (Canadian) to see just how corrupt government and big business can be and not just in the U.S..
The U.S. government was VERY involved in suppressing the hoxsey cure and it's all a matter of public record in the form of congressional hearings.
Both of my aunts died of cancer not long ago and they died from the treatment, not from the cancer. Shocking but true.
Terry
Posted by James1979 (Member # 31926) on :
I would just like to humbly mention to Lou that just because people die while on an alternative therapy, doesn't mean it doesn't work.
For example, if the therapy has a 60% success rate, 40% of people will still die. But that's WAY better than the statistics for the FDA-recommended treatments, plus without the side effects.
Posted by glm1111 (Member # 16556) on :
James,
Have you read Hulda Clarks book "The Cure For All Cancers"?
Gael
Posted by James1979 (Member # 31926) on :
Gael - no, I haven't, but I've been considering it.
Just read some of the reviews there at Amazon.
Posted by James1979 (Member # 31926) on :
Posted by robbiem (Member # 32092) on :
I came across this a few years ago.
Not sure if this guy is on to something here or not, but it certainly caught my attention, and I suspect there is validity to at least some portion of what he says:
my husband's sister is battling lung cancer even tho she's never smoked. she is doing heavy duty chemo and is quite ill.
they wanted to take a lung out but she said no.
she's tough and might make it but i'm not holding out.
you say the "c" word and people automatically panic.
you might be on to something.
however, may i add that if you have lyme people tend to dismiss anything you say, anything, as being from a "hypochrondriac" and won't listen. sad...
Posted by James1979 (Member # 31926) on :
Randi - people don't listen anyway, even if the message is being delivered by a healthy respectable person.
Everybody's been way too brainwashed by the media.
Just this year they put it all over the media that there's a chemotherapy drug shortage. It was a scam by Big Pharma and the FDA to make it look like there is a NECESSITY to have those drugs. They did the same thing with the H1N1 "shortage". The sad thing is, everyone was panicking, so their scam was successful.
Big Pharma spends twice as much on advertising (and brainwashing) as it does on R&D.
They also spend 18.5 billion a year "advertising" to American doctors. That equals about $30,000 per doctor in this country per year. You can brainwash ANYBODY with that amount of money. They basically OWN our doctors.
The first step, if we want people to understand that there are alternatives to the "cut, poison, and burn" techniques, is to make them understand that there are serious financial conflicts of interest in the health care industry. They have to come to the realization that, despite what they see on the news, Big Pharma and the FDA are out there to make money for themselves, and they don't care at all about the health of the people.
I'm not saying that ALL chemo and radiation is bad... I'm just saying that they should at least allow us some more options.
It's similar to the Lyme controversy, where they try to take away our options. I would never say that the IDSA Lyme recommendations should NEVER be followed - it's just that we shouldn't be FORCED to follow them! (especially when we know there are suppressed cures which are WAY more effective and less harmful).
Posted by TerryK (Member # 8552) on :
The problem with cancer is that it often kills relatively quickly. This doesn't give a person much time to research the options especially if they are really sick and brain fogged from chemo. In addition many ppl believe what the doctor tells them because they haven't developed a healthy sense of skepticism towards the medical profession like most of us. Both of my aunts trusted their doctors to know what was best.
Many of those who are in a position to make policy decisions about what kind of medical treatment we are allowed are amoung those who put complete trust in physicians. It's very scary.
james wrote: I'm not saying that ALL chemo and radiation is bad... I'm just saying that they should at least allow us some more options.
In addition to more options they could probably save a lot of lives by adding so called "alternative" methods like the sauna for detox.
If my Aunt Arlita would have listened and gotten a sauna she could have felt much better during chemo and she might have survived the treatment. The cancer was gone but she was so toxic that she died. In the end, they withdrew all of her meds, including her thyroid meds and just let her die. Inhumane in my view. My Aunt Barbara died of a fungal infection because her immune system was decimated. I'm still so angry everytime I think about it.
switching gears Our local medical University instigated a policy whereby they do not allow their doctors to accept gifts of any kind. That helps a little to get the drug companies out of the game of influencing our doctors. I saw a sign in one doctors office that states they do not see drug reps.
In one of my doctors offices I've seen a fancy lunch cart being wheeled in several times. Guess who it is from? A pharmaceutical representative.
Terry
Posted by randibear (Member # 11290) on :
Terry y'all know my mom died of yeast overgrowth and mrsa. She was devastated with abx and they never ever gave her probiotics. I believe that hospital and doctors killed her, pure and simple and nobody, I mean nobody, will ever convince me any different
Posted by James1979 (Member # 31926) on :
The Ralph Moss story, told in his own words: He was told to lie and suppress the positive results of amygdalin studies. He was immediately fired after he "blew the whistle" and told the truth. http://www.whale.to/cancer/ralph_moss_story.html Posted by TerryK (Member # 8552) on :
I remember when that happened randibear. I'm so sorry.
Again, WHY won't the medical profession add some of the alternative modalities for the benefit of the patient??? Probiotics could have made a big difference for your mom. In addition there are studies on green tea extract and MRSA. It works on some strains and it can help certain abx be up to 128 fold more effective for MRSA. It's disgusting that money and politics rules rather than the health of the patient.
James - I guess I won't feel so bad that I haven't had a mammogram for several years. Thanks for the links. So many ppl simply don't believe or don't want to know the state of medical industrial complex and the fact that it is driven by greed.
Terry
Posted by James1979 (Member # 31926) on :
Terry - Dr. Br's blog has an awesome post about the mammograms. Here are the numbers he gave:
-Out of 2,000 patients tested, 1 of them was "saved" because the mammogram caught her cancer early. -10 of them got cancer from the mammograms. -200 of them had "false positives", and received un-necessary treatment, including surgeries.
That's frightening.
If you want, I could try to dig up that blog post.
Posted by James1979 (Member # 31926) on :
Thanks James, I'd like to see the blog. Hopefully there is some credible research cited to back up the claims.
I'm not feeling very good about the natural news link above. While I don't doubt it's possible, I like to see credible back up for claims.
Pharmacists would not typically get toxic chemotherapy drugs on their skin. They wear gloves, don't administer the drugs and many are pre-packaged. I suppose they could breath in dust from dispensing pills??
So, is there any evidence comparing non-chemotherapy dispensing pharmacists to chemotherapy dispensing pharmacists? Any statistics for cancer in pharmacists vs general population?
Terry
Posted by James1979 (Member # 31926) on :
Terry, I like your honesty!
Please read this link, and tell me what you think. It has many links there to other studies, at least one which was done by the CDC.
It also explains the way that the pharmacists are exposed.
Posted by TerryK (Member # 8552) on :
Very helpful, thanks for the link. Such a sad story.
Odd that workers don't take safety precautions seriously. Perhaps OSHA should get involved (if they aren't already) and educate and levy some fines.
I found this list of studies on the CDC site by using some of the terms listed in the links of your article. Sheeeshh! They don't make it that easy to find this stuff do they?
"Two to 4% of cancers respond to chemotherapy....The bottom line is for a few kinds of cancer chemo is a life extending procedure---Hodgkin's disease, Acute Lymphocytic Leukemia (ALL), Testicular cancer, and Choriocarcinoma."---Ralph Moss, Ph.D. 1995 Author of Questioning Chemotherapy.
"NCI now actually anticipates further increases, and not decreases, in cancer mortality rates, from 171/100,000 in 1984 to 175/100,000 by the year 2000!"--Samuel Epstein.
"A study of over 10,000 patients shows clearly that chemo's supposedly strong track record with Hodgkin's disease (lymphoma) is actually a lie. Patients who underwent chemo were 14 times more likely to develop leukemia and 6 times more likely to develop cancers of the bones, joints, and soft tissues than those patients who did not undergo chemotherapy (NCI Journal 87:10)."--John Diamond
Children who are successfully treated for Hodgkin's disease are 18 times more likely later to develop secondary malignant tumours. Girls face a 35 per cent chance of developing breast cancer by the time they are 40---which is 75 times greater than the average. The risk of leukemia increased markedly four years after the ending of successful treatment, and reached a plateau after 14 years, but the risk of developing solid tumours remained high and approached 30 per cent at 30 years (New Eng J Med, March 21, 1996)
"Success of most chemotherapy is appalling...There is no scientific evidence for its ability to extend in any appreciable way the lives of patients suffering from the most common organic cancer...chemotherapy for malignancies too advanced for surgery which accounts for 80% of all cancers is a scientific wasteland."---Dr Ulrich Abel. 1990
The New England Journal of Medicine Reports-- War on Cancer Is a Failure: Despite $30 billion spent on research and treatments since 1970, cancer remains "undefeated," with a death rate not lower but 6% higher in 1997 than 1970, stated John C. Bailar III, M.D., Ph.D., and Heather L. Gornik, M.H.S., both of the Department of Health Studies at the University of Chicago in Illinois. "The war against cancer is far from over," stated Dr. Bailar. "The effect of new treatments for cancer on mortality has been largely disappointing."
"My studies have proved conclusively that untreated cancer victims live up to four times longer than treated individuals. If one has cancer and opts to do nothing at all, he will live longer and feel better than if he undergoes radiation, chemotherapy or surgery, other than when used in immediate life-threatening situations."---Prof Jones. (1956 Transactions of the N.Y. Academy of Medical Sciences, vol 6. There is a fifty page article by Hardin Jones of National Cancer Institute of Bethesda, Maryland. He surveyed global cancer of all types and compared the untreated and the treated, to conclude that the untreated outlives the treated, both in terms of quality and in terms of quantity. Secondly he said, "Cancer does not cure". Third he said "There is a physiological mechanism which finishes off an individual".)
"With some cancers, notably liver, lung, pancreas, bone and advanced breast, our 5 year survival from traditional therapy alone is virtually the same as it was 30 years ago."---P Quillin, Ph.D.
"1.7% increase in terms of success rate a year, its nothing. By the time we get to the 24 century we might have effective treatments, Star Trek will be long gone by that time." Ralph Moss.
"....chemotherapy's success record is dismal. It can achieve remissions in about 7% of all human cancers; for an additional 15% of cases, survival can be "prolonged" beyond the point at which death would be expected without treatment. This type of survival is not the same as a cure or even restored quality of life."--John Diamond, M.D.
"Keep in mind that the 5 year mark is still used as the official guideline for "cure" by mainstream oncologists. Statistically, the 5 year cure makes chemotherapy look good for certain kinds of cancer, but when you follow cancer patients beyond 5 years, the reality often shifts in a dramatic way."--Diamond.
Studies show that women taking tamoxifen after surviving breast cancer then have a high propensity to develop endometrial cancer. The NCI and Zeneca Pharmaceuticals, which makes the drug, aggressively lobbied State of California regulators to keep them from adding tamoxifen to their list of carcinogens. Zeneca is one of the sponsors of Breast Cancer Awareness Month.
"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 tumours...Women with breast cancer are likely to die faster with chemo than without it."--Alan Levin, M.D.
According to the Cancer Statistics for 1995, published by the ACS in their small journal (2), the 5-year survival rate has improved from 50%-56% for whites and 39%-40% for blacks from 1974/1976 - 1983/1990. However, the data is taken from FIVE of the states with the lowest death rates AND the smallest populations! NONE of the 10 states with the highest death rates AND comprising 34% of the Total U.S. Cancer Deaths, were included in the data! Also, in prior years, the Composite (Ave.) 5-year survival rate for ALL Cancers Combined was computed and published. This Ave. 5-year survival crept upward to 50%, in the early nineties. It now stands around 51-52%, due primarily to the improvement of 11% survival for Colon and 13% increased survival for Prostate. It gets worse. The ACS boasts of "statistically significant" results when Uterine Ca survival drops from 89%/60%-85%/55% (W/B)?? Also, Pancreas Ca is 3-3 (W) and Laryngeal Ca survival drops from 59%-53% (B) while Cervical Ca drops from 63%-56% (B). Liver Ca improves from 4%-7%. I wonder how many Pancreatic and Hepatic Ca patients cheered these dramatic results? Ovarian Ca = 36%/40% - 42%/38% (W/B) and Breast Ca = 75%/63% - 82%/66% (W/B). In 16 years the Breast Ca rate improved 3-7%, while Uterine Ca decreased 4-5%. Aren't these marvelous results that the Cancer Establishment should boast about??---RD Hodgell, M.D.
"The five year cancer survival statistics of the American Cancer Society are very misleading. They now count things that are not cancer, and, because we are able to diagnose at an earlier stage of the disease, patients falsely appear to live longer. Our whole cancer research in the past 20 years has been a failure. More people over 30 are dying from cancer than ever before...More women with mild or benign diseases are being included in statistics and reported as being "cured". When government officials point to survival figures and say they are winning the war against cancer they are using those survival rates improperly."---Dr J. Bailer, New England Journal of Medicine (Dr Bailer's answer to questions put by Neal Barnard MD of the Physicians Committee For Responsible Medicine and published in PCRM Update, sept/oct 1990.
"I look upon cancer in the same way that I look upon heart disease, arthritis, high blood pressure, or even obesity, for that matter, in that by dramatically strengthening the body's immune system through diet, nutritional supplements, and exercise, the body can rid itself of the cancer, just as it does in other degenerative diseases. Consequently, I wouldn't have chemotherapy and radiation because I'm not interested in therapies that cripple the immune system, and, in my opinion, virtually ensure failure for the majority of cancer patients."---Dr Julian Whitaker, M.D.
"Finding a cure for cancer is absolutely contraindicated by the profits of the cancer industry's chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery cash trough."--Dr Diamond, M.D.
"We have a multi-billion dollar industry that is killing people, right and left, just for financial gain. Their idea of research is to see whether two doses of this poison is better than three doses of that poison."--Glen Warner, M.D. oncologist.
Suppose you own a nice, comfortable, $300,000 house in the country, but near a small city. While you have gone to the store, your house catches on fire. As you return home, you see that two rooms of your house are in flames and the fire is spreading. You immediately call the fire department. Twenty minutes later three fire trucks show up.� The men and women in the first fire truck pull out heavy suits and axes and run to the house and start cutting down parts of the house that have already burned. They furiously cut; when they have cut out about 10% of the parts of the house that have already burned, they quit and go back to their fire truck.
You note that they did absolutely nothing to stop the spreading of the fire. What they cut out wasn't even burning and it certainly had nothing to do with stopping the raging fire. You watch the men and women in the second fire truck pull out a fire hose and started spraying a powder on the fire. The amount of powder they were spraying did not seem to you to be enough to put out the fire. But you notice that while the powder is slowing down the spreading of the fire, it is also severely damaging the parts of the house that are not on fire.
Puzzled, you ask the fireman what the powder is. They say it is a very toxic acid that is capable of putting the fire out, but they can't spray very much of it on the fire because if they did, the entire house would be reduced to a pile of rubble by the acid. Thus, all they can do is slow down the spreading of the fire, but they can't stop the spreading of the fire.� Even more puzzled, you ask them why they did not bring water�in their fire truck. They said that using water on a house fire is an old ``wives tale'' and water is not effective. They state the government regulatory agency, the Fire Development Administration (FDA) has researched water and has declared that water is an ``unproven'' method to put out house fires.
You silently mumble to yourself that there must be a huge underground connection between the FDA and the chemical companies.� While you have been talking to the men and women in the second truck, five men have jumped out of the third fire truck. They ask you where the couch is in the living room. You point in the general direction of the couch in the living room, which you assume by now is on fire.� Each of them immediately pulls out a 30-06 caliber rifle and starts shooting at the couch from where they are standing next to their fire truck. You scream at them and ask them what they are doing. They respond that they have been taught that couches are very bad to have in a house during a fire, so they are trying to shoot the couch to pieces. They comment: ``We think we are doing some good.''� You say that even if the couch is helping spread the fire, that they are blowing holes in the front and back of the house trying to shoot the couch to pieces from outside the house.
While the spreading of the house fire did slow down because of the toxic acids, within two hours you no longer have a house. The fire men and women are quite proud that they slowed down the fire. They tell you that your house lasted an extra hour because of their work. The give each other ``high fives,'' get in their fire trucks, and head back to the fire station. Between the fire, the acid and the bullets, your house has been reduced to rubble. The cutting out of the wood that had already burned, by the first fire truck, had absolutely no effect on stopping the fire. In fact, nothing stopped the spreading of the fire, it only slowed it down.� You are astonished at what you have seen. You ponder why the ``investigative journalists'' have not jumped on this situation. Then you realize how much the chemical companies advertise on television, and you realize why the ``investigative journalists'' have kept their mouths shut. A week later, as you drive by the fire department, you notice that all of the cars in the parking lot are very expensive cars.� A month later you know why they are driving very expensive cars. They have sent you a bill for their services: $100,000. But they note in the bill that the house insurance company will pay most of the bill. You are puzzled when you look at your house insurance policy and realize the insurance company will not pay the bill if the fire department uses water.
``Is Your House on Fire?'' was written by Webster Kehr�and it brilliantly illustrates the sheer inadequacy of the ``Big 3.'' �Of course, the first fire truck represents surgery, the second fire truck represents chemotherapy, and the third fire truck represents radiation. Slash, Poison, and Burn.
Despite the fact that the ``Big 3''�conventional cancer treatments are toxic, immunosuppressive, and carcinogenic, oncologists continue to prescribe this treatment protocol. But why? Follow the money trail. The ``Big 3'' treatments are the foundation of a multi-BILLION dollar business.� Sadly, if you have cancer and choose the ``Big 3,'' the odds indicate that you will die from complications of the treatment before you have time to die from your cancer.� Ironically, in a demented kind of way, I guess you could say that the ``Big 3'' cancer treatments do prevent many cancer patients from dying from cancer ... They die from the ``treatments'' instead.
Posted by HopesAlive (Member # 29774) on :
quote:Originally posted by James1979: I highly recommend the Burzynski Movie to everyone, so that they can learn how corrupt the system is.
Reminds me of how vaccinations stopped polio...you research that little "truth" for a few days and find out what a cover-up, false statement that is...same situation...different illness.
Posted by missing (Member # 22437) on :
How did vaccinations stop polio?
Very interesting thread! Keeping my mind off the horrific pain.
I am worried that I am not taking enough probiotics.
Should I be going to get sauna treatments?
I wish someone could write a basic chart/list thing with all the treatments in one column, and all the supplements and vitamins, and then all the other stuff to try, like iodine,.
How much iodine do I need?
Interesting, the other day I was thinking, "I would drink poison if it took all the pain away".
So, they are getting these cancer patients when they are most vulnerable.
Today, my mother in law told me that my daughter should just go outside for sunshine and she would feel better. She has severe Lyme.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)