Why Choose Alternative Cancer Treatments (2)
On Chemotherapy, Cancer Diagnosing and Avoidable Suffering
Quotes
Copyright © 2004-2011 Healing Cancer Naturally
Welcome to page two of Healing Cancer Naturally’s “Why Choose Alternative Cancer Treatment?” series featuring concise but impressive statements on the euphemistically named chemo"therapy", the diagnosing of cancer, and suffering that could easily be avoided.
On Chemotherapy
[C]hemotherapy is basically ineffective in the vast majority of cases in which it is given.
Ralph Moss, PhD, former Director of Information for Sloan Kettering Cancer Research Center
Chemotherapy is ineffective in treating most cancers, the exceptions being acute lymphocytic leukemia, Hodgkin's disease, nonseminomatous testicular cancer, as well as a few very rare forms of cancer, including choriocarcinoma, Wilm's tumor, and retinoblastoma.
paraphrasing Dr. Ralph Moss in Questioning Chemotherapy
(But compare Dr Tim O'Shea quote in On Cancer Business regarding “effectiveness”!)
Testicular cancer has yielded to platinum containing drugs... It is extremely damaging to the body [impotence being one of many likely consequences), but it does lead to a very extended life for people with this problem.
Dr. Ralph Moss on Chemotherapy, Laetrile, Coley's Toxins, Burzynski, & Cancer Politics, Laura Lee radio show, 1994
...as a chemist trained to interpret data, it is incomprehensible to me that physicians can ignore the clear evidence that chemotherapy does much, much more harm than good.
Alan C Nixon, PhD, former president of the American Chemical Society
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
”Best book I've ever read on chemotherapy.”
Ralph Moss' Questioning Chemotherapy is a book that every person faced with cancer must read before submitting to toxic chemicals which may very well destroy the body's immune system. Unlike many alternative health authors who base their conclusions on anecdotal evidence, Moss uses the medical establishment's own research to prove that in almost all instances chemotherapy is NOT a viable approach to improving cancer survival rates. Moss also makes the important point that current cancer research has never bothered to examine the mental anguish, physical suffering, and poor quality of life endured by almost everyone whose doctors talk or scare them into undergoing chemotherapy. Learning about the economics behind chemotherapy drives the final nail into the coffin of a "therapy" that educated people in the future will consider outrageous and reflective of the current dark ages of so-called modern medicine. This is a must read book for anyone who wants to know the truth behind chemotherapy or anyone whose doctor wants to inject toxic chemicals into their bloodstream.
Chet Day’s review of ”Questioning Chemotherapy: A Critique of the Use of Toxic Drugs in the Treatment of Cancer” by Ralph W. Moss
Except for two forms of cancer, chemotherapy does not cure. It tortures and may shorten life...
Dr. Candace Pert, Georgetown University School of Medicine
[D]espite ...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 p 901,
"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
Question: "How in the world, Dr Moss, can [chemotherapy] be considered a standard cure, when it works for 2-4 [percent of cancer patients], and very specific ones?
Answer: We are dealing with an industry. It is not supported by the facts. The way that it is done is this. The drugs are tested in test tubes, and they look for things that will kill cells. After you have found something that kills cells, cancer cells, cell lines which are very abnormal non-typical sort of growths, maybe a new life form almost, then you put it into animals. Then if it kills the cancers before it kills the animals, and shrinks the tumours, you consider you have an active agent. You then put it into people, and go through the 3 phases the FDA prescribes for this, and basically if you can shrink the tumour 50% or more for 28 days you have got the FDA's definition of an active drug. That is called a response rate, so you have a response.. Quite a bit [different from a cure] because when you look to see if there is any life prolongation from taking this treatment what you find is all kinds of hocus pocus and song and dance about the disease free survival, and this and that. In the end there is no proof that chemotherapy in the vast majority of cases actually extends life, and this is the GREAT LIE about chemotherapy, that somehow there is a correlation between shrinking a tumour and extending the life of the patient. [Or that there is a correlation between looking at a cancer cell in a test tube and the tumour in someone's body.] What happens as you grow those cells in cell lines they become very weird. Hundreds and hundreds of generations later they don't even look like even normal human cancer cells. They are things that grow under glass, immortal cells, unlike ... normal cancer cells. So much cancer research is very questionable because it is based on this cell line research.
Ralph Moss, PhD, former Director of Information for Sloan Kettering Cancer Research Center
CHEMOTHERAPY: AN UNPROVEN PROCEDURE
How can that be true of the main cancer treatment in the U.S.? Fact is, no solid scientific studies or clinical trials prove chemotherapy's effectiveness, except in a small percentage of very rare types of cancer. For solid tumors of adults, the vast majority of cancer, or anything that has metastasized, chemotherapy just doesn't work.
A German epidemiologist from the Heidelberg/Mannheim Tumor Clinic, Dr. Ulrich Abel has done a comprehensive review and analysis of every major study and clinical trial of chemotherapy ever done. His conclusions should be read by anyone who is about to embark on the Chemo Express. To make sure he had reviewed everything ever published on chemotherapy, Abel sent letters to over 350 medical centers around the world asking them to send him anything they had published on the subject. Abel researched thousands of articles: it is unlikely that anyone in the world knows more about chemotherapy than he.
The analysis took him several years, but the results are astounding: Abel found that the overall worldwide success rate of chemotherapy was "appalling" because there was simply no scientific evidence available anywhere that chemotherapy can "extend in any appreciable way the lives of patients suffering from the most common organic cancers." Abel emphasizes that chemotherapy rarely can improve the quality of life. He describes chemotherapy as "a scientific wasteland" and states that at least 80 percent of chemotherapy administered throughout the world is worthless, and is akin to the "emperor's new clothes" - neither doctor nor patient is willing to give up on chemotherapy even though there is no scientific evidence that it works! - Lancet 10 Aug 91 No mainstream media even mentioned this comprehensive study: it was totally buried.
Dr Tim O'Shea in TO THE CANCER PATIENT
Also compare the detailed scientifically referenced article Death by Medicine at mercola.com/2003/nov/26/death_by_medicine.htm.
When any chemotherapeutic drug is spilled in the hospital or anywhere en route, it is classified as a major biohazard, requiring the specialists to come and clean it up with their space-suits and all their strictly regulated protocols. Yet this same agent is going to be put into the human body and is expected to cure it of disease? What's wrong with this picture?
Dr Tim O'Shea in TO THE CANCER PATIENT www.thedoctorwithin.com
 Click on picture to see |
...and since a picture says more than a thousand words, here is a reduced-size rendering of the burning and scarring resulting of chemotherapy fluid spilling onto the unprotected hand. Does this picture make one feel safer to have such an extremely aggressive toxic chemical administered within one’s body via intravenous injection? Knowing that our outer skin is actually better protected against any impacts than our inner body? That is also why nurses administering chemotherapy have to wear protective gloves and follow the most stringent security measures in case of any accidental spills of chemotherapy beyond 5 cc, see High risks involved in accidental spillage of chemotherapy drugs.
...chemo drugs are some of the most toxic substances ever designed to go into a human body, their effects are very serious, and are often the direct cause of death. Like the case of Jackie Onassis, who underwent chemo for one of the rare diseases in which it generally has some beneficial results: non-Hodgkins lymphoma. She went into the hospital on Friday and was dead by Tuesday.
Dr Tim O'Shea in TO THE CANCER PATIENT
PROSTATE CANCER
is one of the worst areas of chemotherapy abuse, according to Norman Zinner, MD. He states: "Most men with prostate cancer will die from other illnesses never knowing they had the problem."
Hormones have been used as therapy since the 1940s, with no overall improvement in survival. Early detection of prostate cancer has resulted in thousands of men being treated for a condition that would have been self-limiting. No figures are available for those who have died from the side effects of treatment when the condition would never have caused any problems or symptoms during the patient's entire lifetime...Some studies show rates as high as 40% in autopsies of men over 70 in which prostate cancer was discovered which the patient never knew about, and which was not the cause of death. (American Cancer Society, 1995).
There are no randomized clinical trials proving that chemotherapy for prostate cancer increases long term survival. Au contraire, a 1992 study published in JAMA demonstrated that there was no difference in 10 year survival rate between the men who did nothing at all and those who had treatment. (Johansson)
Dr Tim O'Shea in TO THE CANCER PATIENT
In a survey of 79 oncologists from McGill University Cancer Center in Canada, 64 said they would not consent to treatment with Cisplatin, a common chemotherapy drug, while 58 oncologists said they would reject all the current trials being carried out by their establishment.
Why? “The ineffectiveness of chemotherapy and its unacceptable degree of toxicity.”
Philip Day, Cancer: Why We’re Still Dying to Know the Truth
THE BI-PHASIC EFFECT: WHY CHEMO DOESN'T WORK
Every time we put a drug in our body, two things happen:
1. what the drug initially does to the body
2. how the body adapts to the drug
Any example will do. Antibiotics? First, the drug kills all bacteria in the body. Then the body responds by growing them back, often with the bad bacteria out of balance, which come back in more powerful, mutated forms. Steroids? First, muscles are built because testosterone has been mimicked. Then the body responds by cutting production of natural testosterone, which eventually feminizes the athlete by shrinking the gonads... Obviously these are simplifications, but you get the idea.
“Drugs tend to worsen whatever they're supposed to cure, which sets up a vicious circle.” Dr. Dean Black in Health at the Crossroads p. 20
The Bi-Phasic Effect is well-explained by Dean Black and many other researchers who were trying to figure out why tumors seemed to come back with such a vengeance after chemotherapy. Some original work was done by American Cancer Society researcher Robert Schimke in 1985, who discovered that the way cancer cells resist chemotherapy is to replicate even harder and faster. Chemo drugs are lethal; so the cancer cells are stimulated to try and survive any way they can, which means faster growth. In the presence of any toxin, cells will resist it to stay alive. The more they resist, the stronger they get. Black sees cancer itself is just an adaptation; a normal response to an abnormal poison. Chemotherapy simply provokes adaptation. (Black, p. 45) This is why we all know people who have had chemotherapy and experienced temporary remission. But when the tumor came back, it did so with a vengeance, and the patient was quickly overwhelmed.
Schimke talks about the possible effects chemotherapy might have on a tumor that otherwise may have been self-limiting:
"Might such treatments convert relatively benign tumors into more lethal forms?" Robert Schimke p. 1915
Think about this the next time you hear an oncologist talk about "mopping up" with powerful chemo drugs just to be sure we "got it all." Or prescribing powerful chemotherapy for a "pre-cancerous" or even a benign situation.
To understand the bi-phasic effect, one begins to realize that drugs are fighting the body. The whole military motif - medicine imposes its will upon the body, even though we have vastly incomplete information to be doing something that arrogant.
Dr Tim O'Shea in TO THE CANCER PATIENT
In 1986, McGill Cancer Center scientists sent a questionnaire to 118 doctors who treated non-small-cell lung cancer. More than three quarters of them recruited patients and carried out trials of toxic drugs for lung cancer. They were asked to imagine that they themselves had cancer, and were asked which of six current trials they themselves would choose. Of the 79 respondents, 64 said they would not consent to be in a trial containing cisplatin, a common chemotherapy drug Fifty-eight found all the trials unacceptable. Their reasons? The ineffectiveness of chemotherapy and its unacceptable degree of toxicity.
Famed German biostatistician Ulrich Abel, PhD, also found in a similar 1989 study that "the personal views of many oncologists seem to be in striking contrast to communications intended for the public."
”Chemotherapy Report”
formerly published at seasilver.threadnet.com/Preventorium/chemo.htm
It is estimated that roughly 40% of cancer patients actually die of malnutrition rather than their disease itself [for background see Advice what to do when the digestive tract has been damaged by chemotherapy].
www.doctormurray.com
If your friend touches chemotherapy, he's a goner.
Chemotherapy expert Ernst Wynder, former professor at Sloan-Kettering Hospital and recipient of a medal from the American Cancer Association, in a warning to a friend of professor Gearin-Tosh who healed himself of one of the most lethal cancers known using natural means.
More quotes and facts on chemotherapy
Also see On Conventional Cancer Treatment, On Drugs and History of Alternative Cancer Treatment.
On Cancer Diagnosing
Most cancers are not found until autopsy. That's because they never caused any symptoms. For example 30 - 40 times as many cases of thyroid, pancreatic, and prostate cancer are found in autopsy than ever presented to the doctor. According to a study cited in top British medical journal Lancet 13 Feb 93, early screening often leads to unnecessary treatment: 33% of autopsies show prostate cancer but only 1% die from it. After age 75, half of males may have prostate cancer, but only 2% die from it. This means simply that the immune system can hold many problems in check, as long as it is not compromised by powerful procedures. Guess which system is the most important to you at this time, more than it's ever been before in your whole life. Right - the immune system. Guess which system suffers most from chemotherapy and radiation. Right again. So the one time in your life you most need it, your immune system will be weakened by those therapies. If you're one of the few cancer patients who's refused standard treatment from the get-go - good, but your immune system still needs all the help you can give it.
A 1992 study in Journal of the American Medical Association of 223 patients concluded that no treatment at all for prostate cancer actually was better than any standard chemotherapy, radiation or surgical procedure. (Johansson)
Dr Tim O'Shea in TO THE CANCER PATIENT www.thedoctorwithin.com
Compare Cancer “Overdiagnosing” and “Over-Treatment”: Do be aware!.
BIOPSY OF BREAST/PROSTATE:
”I rarely see distant metastasis until after a biopsy -- and then it rapidly goes everywhere including the bones.”
Dr. Vincent Gammill
More on Biopsies
In 2002, a mammogram showed a tiny anomaly in my left breast. Then the nightmare began...
L. P. who has come to consider conventional cancer treatment an “evil industry”
Read more.
Unexpected shocks can lead to cancer - brain metastasis wrongly diagnosed
...[Dr] Hamer named the "foci" formed in the brain in response to shocks HHs ("Hamersche Herde"...). ...This brain alteration can be photographed via computer-tomography (CT) ... radiologists have mistaken this phenomenon for a defect in the equipment or a "brain metastasis".
A. Stahel in My Interpretation of New Medicine:
A Revolutionary Biological Paradigm
It's not the results of the "bone scans" or "CTs" which are of crucial importance ... but whether the cancer can be gotten under control or not. While many of the test methods used by us physicians are certainly scientific, they say nothing about the patient's state of health.*
Dr. Budwig's approach is not a method of healing cancer but a technique which strengthens the body's own immune defence against cancerous cells.
Dr Armin Grunewald, MD, nephew of Dr. Budwig, who incorporates parts of her approach in his office
Compare “Modern Medicine Is Not A Science”.
After one recent survey two pathologists reported that after carrying out 400 post-mortem examinations they had found that in more than half the patients the wrong diagnosis had been made. This presumably also means that in more than half the patients the wrong treatment had been given. And since so many modern treatments are undeniably powerful it also presumably means that a large proportion of those patients died because of their treatment. The two pathologists reported that potentially treatable disease was missed in one in seven patients. They found that 65 out of 134 cases of pneumonia had gone unrecognised while out of 51 patients who had suffered heart attacks doctors had failed to diagnose the problem in 18 cases.
Dr. Vernon Coleman, M.D., D. Sc., author of 114 books with translations into 23 languages selling in over 50 countries
(from Dr. Vernon Coleman’s article “Modern Medicine Is Not A Science”)
Like so much of what we do, the true benefit, if any, is likely to be confined to a very few patients. One of the major problems in clarifying the discussion lies in getting 'authorities' to clearly define the exact nature of the 'benefit' they claim for the test. For instance, 'early detection of a tumor' is not of benefit unless this leads to a genuine improvement in the quality of life, over that which would have been expected if the tumor had not been detected early.
An M.D./natural physician commenting on the article "Prostate test 'all but useless', Researchers say men put at risk of impotence"
You can never be too cautious in your prognosis, in the view of the great uncertainty of the course of any disease not long watched, and the many unexpected turns it may take... Beware how you take away hope from any human being...It is the height of cruelty and the extreme of impertinence to tell your patient he must die...
Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr., physician and poet (1809 - 1894) in his Valedictory Address to medical graduates at Harvard University (10 March 1858), published in The Boston Medical and Surgical Journal Vol. LVIII, No. 8 (25 March 1858), p. 158
Patients who undergo magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans are often given drug injections to enhance the quality of scan images. But the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently announced that these drugs will now require a black box warning label--the strongest in the industry--because they can cause a rare, and sometimes fatal, condition known as nephrogenic fibrosing dermopathy (NFD).
Jonathan Benson
Compare review of Dr. H. Gilbert Welch’s book “Should I Be Tested for Cancer? Maybe Not and Here's Why” (on the risks vs. benefits of cancer screening in healthy [asymptomatic] people) and Alternative Diagnostic/Screening Methods For Detection & Follow-Up of Cancer & Cancerous Tumors.
Also compare On Mammography, Biopsies of Breast/Prostate, On Cancer Business, and Cancer Causes: Radiation.
On Avoidable Suffering
Pam Young had breast cancer, innocently trusted her doctors’s recommendations (mastectomy, followed by TRAMflap ”reconstructive” surgery) which led to lymphedema (swelling of arm) and a horrible pain-ridden life as a wheelchair-bound cripple.
She, like so many (including a well-known person 2000 years ago), suffered unspeakably and died, perhaps so that others - by learning from her example - wouldn’t have to undergo the same: ”It is my desire to save other women from the same fate. There are alternatives to the ‘cut, burn and poison’ modalities used by the Allopathic doctors. If I can help save one woman, I will be thankful.”
Please listen to her.
Up until the pain became too great, Pam worked very hard to help other women who were ill and/or disabled from TRAM flap surgeries, breast implant illnesses, and breast cancer.
She created a book that resides in her home town library of Findlay, Ohio, which tells the truth about the dangers and risks associated with reconstructive breast surgery and cancer treatment.
She worked very hard to enact legislation in her home state so that women who are confronted with TRAM flap surgery would be given Informed Consent about this surgery prior to being operated.
Together with her friend Lany, she created the following informative groups:
BAAR, [Breast Augmentation And Reconstruction]
which is a public newsgroup that focuses on the risks of TRAM flap surgery, breast implants, and related issues.
She contributed a great deal of research to the newsgroup, SBI Prayer Forum,
Her work and testimony remain in the archives of these groups.
Her last effort to help other women was the creation of the group
Alternative Breast Cancer
...expos[ing] the dangers of radiation from mammograms and [offering] thermograms as a safer alternative. It discusses unnecessary mastectomies and lymphedema caused by lymph node dissection. Complications of breast implants and tissue flap reconstructions are exposed. ... reviews the carcinogenic effects of chemo, radiation and Tamoxifen.
Non-toxic, non-invasive preventative, natural therapies for breast cancer [are discussed].
(Second part of the above written by Pam’s friend Lany)
It was my misfortune to find out about conventional treatment the hard way, for which I am paying. ... it is difficult for me to talk about this horrible experience because of the trauma associated with it. ... I am working with a trauma counsellor in the hopes that the memories will lose some of their power to overwhelm.
L. P. who after experiencing the shock, trauma & disfigurement resulting from “quackery at its cruelest” considers conventional cancer treatment an “evil industry”.
Read more
If I had known then what I know now, I would never, never, NEVER let anyone touch me with a needle or a knife!!!!
Cheryl Franks after her experience with TRAM flap mastectomy & biopsies following a CDIS diagnosis
Compare Potential serious side effects you may not be told about.
Read Dr. Tim O'Shea’s excellent article TO THE CANCER PATIENT in its entirety at www.thedoctorwithin.com .
“Alternatives to Pain Medication: Natural Approaches to Relieving Cancer Pain” is now here.
On Cancer Business is now here.
On Nature & Self-Healing is now here
Sponsored Links