Why Alternative Cancer Treatment

On Conventional Oncology (Mainstream Cancer Therapy)

Quotes & facts to be aware of

P. 26 of “Why Alternative Cancer Treatment?” continues the subject

On Conventional Cancer Treatment (contd. from first page)

Patients are as well, or better off, untreated.
Dr. Hardin Jones, cancer researcher & professor at the University of California Berkeley

Cancer therapy is so toxic and dehumanizing that I fear it far more than I fear death from cancer itself.
Ralph W.Moss, Ph.D., author of The Cancer Industry

Mainstream doctors receive distorted information on alternative cancer treatments. Therefore, you cannot rely on mainstream doctors to recommend the correct cancer treatment. You must rely on yourself.

If you can read ...[The Cancer Industry and World Without Cancer], you will most likely avoid:

Being operated on to determine if your tumors are cancerous. The operation has a good chance of spreading cancer cells and is completely unnecessary because there is a urine test that is as reliable as a biopsy (source: World Without Cancer) and a blood test.

Being radiated at, but radiation is usually just a delay tactic and the side effect of radiation is cancer (source: The Cancer Industry).

Given chemo, which derails your immune system and wrecks your kidneys. If the cancer persists, and it usually does (World Without Cancer by Griffin), your body will require months of recovery before most alternative treatments can help. If you don't avoid the above course of action, you and your insurance company will spend about $200,000. Consider that one out of four people get cancer, do the math, and you will have a feel for the most significant aspect of the cancer industry: $$$.
Paul Winter, Cancell Web Page Webmaster

Oncologist Dr. Simoncini who developed a "gentle" and frequently very effective cancer treatment based on sodium bicarbonate was asked how he came to abandon the conventional cancer treatments of chemotherapy and radiation he had been trained to administer. He said that the reason was that he saw all his patients dying under this standard oncological care, so he prayed for God to show him a better way to treat those cancer victims he couldn't help with the best treatments he had known before.
Healing Cancer Naturally

"No, I haven't read anything about diet."
Unnamed oncologist after recommending milkshakes to a stage 4 cancer patient, in answer to the question, "Have you read any of the data about cancer cells feeding and multiplying on sugar?" (from D. Walters Childs' "A Dose of Reality: Losing William to the Big Business of Cancer in America", see excerpt)
Compare Sugar and Cancer.

I think we can take for granted that there cannot be true honesty from providers of conventional cancer treatment. After all, how many would accept these treatments if they had all the facts?
L. P. who after experiencing the shock, trauma & disfigurement resulting from “quackery at its cruelest” considers conventional cancer treatment an “evil industry”

Chemotherapy and radiation do not make the body well. They destroy, they do not heal. The hope of the doctor is that the cancer will be destroyed without destroying the entire patient. These therapies do kill cancer cells, but they kill a lot of good cells too including the cells of the immune system, the very system that one NEEDS to get well.

If a cancer patient survives the treatment with enough immune system left intact, the patient may appear to get well at least temporarily, but he will have sustained major damage to his body and his immune system. How much better it is to nourish the immune system directly by the use of natural therapies to assist it in getting you well instead of destroying it by the use of these therapies. Then the immune system itself can kill the cancer cells without any side effects and heal your body at the same time.
Lorraine Day, M.D. one of those women who cured themselves of breast cancer naturally

I don't trust any doctor anymore.
Vanessa T., my best friend's mother and the inspiration for this website, the last time I spoke to her on the phone a few months before she died in October 2003 after undergoing 2 years of conventional cancer treatment for colon cancer which later metastasized to the liver. Her treatment included original surgery, renewed surgery (something was botched up the first time and a lawsuit was considered) followed by rounds of chemo, then “a new experimental” chemo and finally hospice, and of course her oncologist's initial stentorian pronouncement: "I GIVE YOU TWO YEARS."

Contrast this with Hope for Colon Cancer Patients: Cure Testimonial, Gerson Juice Treatment Testimonials: Colon Cancer Healing, Raw Food Colon Cancer Healing Testimonial and DIY recovery from ”terminal” metastasized colon cancer using a natural, holistic, nutritional approach.

[paraphrasing a book review found online since I am not allowed to quote verbatim] The reviewer's mother had had ovarian cancer and had been treated for nearly two years with no positive results. When she died, her husband (the reviewer's father) had lost his lifetime of earnings and had been driven into bankruptcy by the medical industry. While in other branches of the economy you get your money back when you don't get what you paid for, this is not true in modern medicine.
healingcancernaturally.com

What you are about to read will shock you. It is a story of oncologists lying to parents about the efficacy of their therapy and using coercive tactics such as threats of court orders to take children and submit them to treatments that they know are torturous and ineffective.......

We were told, not asked, but told that we had 30 days from Alexander’s surgeries to start chemo. We were told that chemo would offer Alexander a good chance of survival. We were told that he would be getting a new chemo protocol with "state-of-the-art" drugs.

And we were warned that if we did not bring Alexander in for chemotherapy a court order would be forthcoming so that the oncologists could take him from us and administer these poisons without our approval. We were lied to and threatened so that oncologists could fill our son with deadly ineffective poisons that simply shortened his life and made his last days on earth a living hell.

The oncologists did what they were trained to without challenging the death that surrounds their treatments. The FDA took away Alexander’s freedom to use a non-toxic and potentially life-saving therapy. The drug companies received their chemotherapy profits. Alexander lost his life. And we have to live with the knowledge that we never gave our son a fighting chance to survive his disease.
No Rights for a Child Diagnosed with Cancer, Raphaele & Michael Horwin www.whale.to/v/horwin1.html

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.
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

Doctors are too busy to dig into the statistics of cancer treatments, they assume that what they are taught at school or what is demonstrated in the pages of briefing journals is the best treatment. They cannot afford to suspect that these treatments are only the best for the pharmaceutical companies that influence their 'institutions of higher learning'.
Paul Winter, The Cancell Home Page

The five year survival rates for the major cancers are: stomach - 5%, trachea, bronchus and lung - 5%, breast - 50%, oesophagus - 5%, large intestine - 22%, pancreas - 4%, liver - 2% ... attacking the tumour with the slash/burn/poison version of cancer therapy, and then pronouncing "cured" after the five year survival period has elapsed, has, of course, nothing remotely to do with the successful treatment of the disease. Patients who die from the effects of chemo or radio "therapy" after more than five years have passed are counted as cured. Being dead or dying does not exclude one from the figures of the cancer industry's creative statisticians.
British Anti-Vivisection Association

Over 75% of the oncologists polled said that if they had cancer they would never use the same chemotherapy they prescribe for their patients on themselves because of the ineffectiveness of chemotherapy and its unacceptable degree of toxicity.
Los Angeles Times report

[O]ne of the most important things I have ever heard was said to me by an oncological nurse. She was a member of an adult college class I was taking in 1989. When she found out I'd been diagnosed with cancer [and] was entering into treatment for lymphoma, she took it upon herself to say to me, unbidden and unasked, "Elliot, YOU have GOT to TAKE CONTROL of YOUR OWN treatment, or THE DOCTORS WILL TURN YOU INTO A PIECE OF MEAT."

Truer words were never spoken! Because that nurse had thought it important enough to say that to me without my ever asking, I took what she said very much to heart, and I know her words saved me a great deal of grief!
E. Yudenfriend who cured himself of lymphoma, considered incurable by mainstream medicine

Cancer patients suffer from a faulty metabolism caused by a malfunction in the lipid defense system. By repairing the lipid defense system the cancer cannot survive. Of course common chemo and radiation causes further harm to the lipid defense system — the very system that protects you from cancer!

The folks who will READILY ADMIT that they don't understand the cancer mechanism will tell you with their next breath that cancer can be killed with poisons. So can you.

Would you trust your car to a so-called mechanic who didn't understand what makes a car work properly? If not, why would you let someone who doesn't understand cancer "fix" your body? The average cancer docs don't know — they admit it. That doesn't make them bad people, it just makes them unqualified to treat your condition if you have cancer. Don't let unqualified people poison you just because they don't know what else to do.
William Kelley Eidem, author of "The Doctor Who Cures Cancer (Dr Revici)

You have probably heard of "Double Blind" medical studies. They need to be renamed. From now on, they should be called "Doubly Blind." Nature magazine (483, 531–533, 29 March 2012, www.nature.com/nature/journal/v483/n7391/full/483531a.html) is blasting them. Researchers took a look not just at any old garden variety published studies, but at what were considered really important, landmark studies. Those landmark studies are heavily relied upon, and affect how people are treated medically. Nearly 90% of the examined studies flunked!

... "scientific findings were confirmed in only 6 (11%) cases. Even knowing the limitations of preclinical research, this was a shocking result." Unreliable and/or not reproducible 9 times out of 10? Oh my!
William Kelley Eidem

Always shove aside the words 'Tumor Response' because it is not the factor we need to see. What we need is 'survivability' and that is what you seek but must often read between the lines of medical literature to find what the odds are.
Anonymous

Compare Statistics, Quote from Philip Binzel MD and Lothar Hirneise on the role of tumors as toxin reservoir

Almost every patient treated with IL2 (a current conventional cancer treatment) suffered fever, malaise, nausea or vomiting, diarrhoea, sharp drops in blood pressure, skin rashes, breathing difficulties, liver abnormalities and irregularities in blood chemistry. Rosenberg himself details a number of horrifying case histories, and one in particular where the administration of IL2 had precipitated amongst other things, vomiting, swollen joints, lung fluid and 'vascular leak syndrome' where blood would ooze through the vessel walls and collect under the skin.
Steven Rosenberg, The Transformed Cell, 1992. (IL2 is still used today.)

The Medical Monopoly
The field of U.S. cancer care is organized around a medical monopoly that ensures a continuous flow of money to the pharmaceutical companies, medical technology firms, research institutes, and government agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and quasi-public organizations such as the American Cancer Society (ACS).
Ralph Moss, Ph.D., quoted by John Diamond, M.D., & Lee Cowden, M.D. in Alternative Medicine: The Definitive Guide to Cancer

A respected cancer specialist trying to persuade the author to take chemotherapy treatment writes him a warm and friendly letter. In it, he casually remarks: "I am sorry I forgot to mention to you that the best way of administering this chemotherapy is through a Hickman line which can be placed into one of the big veins, and tunneled out under the skin of your chest wall. This then stays in place for the duration of your treatment." Gearin-Tosh comments,

"His phrase 'I forgot to mention' makes me paranoid about gradual disclosure, about bad news dripping out. Will there be more? And I saw a Hickman line at the Marsden (hospital): a patient's shirt was open and a rubber tube hung from his chest ... I decline the treatment."

Gearin-Tosh's description of the de-constructive interpretation he puts to the carefully calibrated soothing language aimed to coax him into a regime of chemotherapy while hiding its horrors and ultimate hopelessness is worth the price of the book itself. It is a stunning demonstration of why all values and qualities in any society, including technological progress and the struggle to maintain social justice and human liberty, ultimately depend on the honest and accurate use of language.

"In the beginning was the Word." And without it there is no salvation. And no physical cure or relief either.
Martin Sieff reviewing "Living Proof: A Medical Mutiny," by Michael Gearin-Tosh, who cured himself of a typically deadly form of cancer (0.005 % 3-year survival rate)

...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. 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

Many surgeons abandoned the mastectomy, yet in the USA over 1,000 women per week are persuaded to part with their breast, underlying muscles and lymph nodes, but the scalpel spivs omit to tell the victims that the average survival period is around twelve years without the mutilation and three years with it.
Prof. H.B. Jones, Dept of Medical Physics and Physiology, University of California, in an address to the American Cancer Society in 1975

If the reader agrees with nothing I have said so far, but has less than 100% confidence in the hospital's ability to cure your cancer, get behind this: follow none of my recommendations. Do nothing: no doctors, no treatment, mainstream or holistic. Go home and live your life. For the majority of cancers, no one can tell you with any authority that you are doing anything "high risk." To the contrary, doctors have known since 1975 that survival rate with no treatment at all is higher than survival rates with standard chemo/radiation/ surgery. (Lancet, 1975)
Dr. Tim O'Shea in TO THE CANCER PATIENT

If you actually do the research ... it is virtually impossible not to arrive at a similar conclusion: that mainstream cancer treatment is rarely effective and exists primarily for the benefit of the cancer industry itself, not you. If you go along with their program, it is likely that at some point you will learn the truth of this reality. For most, that point comes too late.

If you suspect there may be some validity to what I'm saying, you owe it to yourself to investigate it thoroughly on your own before you submit to even the mildest of chemotherapies. I promise, you will be no match for the masterful stairstepping of procedures and testing that awaits you, dangling little improvements with enticements to try this or that drug because "It's really not that toxic" or the standard "now this won't cure your cancer, but it will slow it down," or the Oscar-winning "it's OK to take some of your herbs or natural products along with the chemotherapy/radiation/surgery. They won't interfere."

Oncologists are getting increasingly sophisticated at tricking the frightened, uninformed patient and his family into accepting the standard worthless drugs and surgical procedures. One of the newest ploys is telling the patient that "we have something special for you, an experimental drug, just developed." This one is used with patients who are beginning to question the toxicity of chemo and need a little extra hope. Then they find out later that the drug was not new at all, but was one of the standard poisons, like methyltrexate, that has been around for the past 25 years. By then it's too late, because the patient is so debilitated he'll do anything the doctor says.
Dr. Tim O'Shea in TO THE CANCER PATIENT

WHO'S WINNING?
We're constantly being hit with media stories about "progress" in the war on cancer and new "breakthrough" drugs and procedures being "right around the corner." The military rhetoric hasn't changed since 1971. Is it true that we're winning the war against cancer like they're always telling us?
From the U.S. government's own statistical abstracts we find the real story:
Mortality from Cancer in the U.S.
year --- deaths/ 100,000
1967--- 157.2
1970--- 162.9
1982--- 187.3
1987--- 198.2
1988--- 198.4
1989--- 201.0
1990--- 203.2
1991--- 204.1
1992--- 204.1
source: Vital Statistics of the United States vol.II 1967-1992

1992 is the last year for which data is currently available from Vital Statistics. There is nothing to indicate that there should be any downturn between 1992 and the present. In fact, independent analysis by the CA Journal for Cancer Clinicians, Jan 97, put the 1993 death rate at 220 per 100,000. Does that sound like progress?
Why does nobody know this? Bet you never saw this chart before.

Numbers can be twisted and made to do tricks. This chart is the raw data, not age adjusted or divided by race, or type of cancer. Anyone can dig this information up by going to any library reference section. But try finding a medical reference or journal article or a URL that uses this chart. Try finding a newspaper or magazine article in the last 15 years that uses the raw data. And this data says one thing: more people are dying of cancer now per capita than ever before, and nothing is slowing the increase. Not early detection, not better screenings, not new high tech machines, not radiation, not surgery, and definitely not chemotherapy.

Backtracking a little, in 1900 cancer was practically unheard of in this country. By 1950, there were about 150 cases of cancer per 100,000 population. In 1971, Nixon introduced the War on Cancer, opening the floodgates of massive research funding backed by the government. This situation escalated until by the 1980s, over $50 billion per year was being spent to "find the cure." And yet we have the plain data in the chart above. What is going on?
Dr. Tim O'Shea in TO THE CANCER PATIENT

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 Armin Grunewald, MD

Cutting away every and all cells thought to be cancerous, in order to "prevent metastases", as done today, is both unnecessary and maiming. Either way, the canceration will continue in the area, since the conflict is still unresolved, so it's important to focus entirely on conflict solution afterwards - something conventional medicine doesn't care about...
A. Stahel in My Interpretation of New Medicine: A Revolutionary Biological Paradigm

”I am providing [links to breast implant and tissue flap sites] in the hopes of lifting a veil of illusion that exists about Allopathic Medicine.
People believe that doctors are ‘good’ and that they would not harm their patients.
People also believe that surgery and drugs heal cancer.
They believe that women are grateful to have their breasts cut off and reconstructed with breast implants or tissue flaps.

The Right To Choose Fallacy
Breast Implant & TRAM Flap Photos
Photos That Plastic Surgeons Don't Want You To See
Breast Implant Photos
Silicone Breast Implant Photos
TRAM/Tissue Flap Testimonies
Breast Implant/Tissue Flap Testimonies
Women Injured by Plastic Surgeons In Canada and USA
Eileen Swanson's Saline Implant Story
Implants and Tissue Flaps Information
Dr. Guthrie Talks About The TRAM Flap
Linda Halford's TRAM Flap Story
Sami Lucas's Silicone Implant Story
Life After Breast Implants - Lany Donnelly's Page
Greater Dallas Texas National Organization of Women
Humantics Foundation - Ilena Rosenthal's Links for Breast Implants
TRAM/Latissimus Dorsi Flap Library
Breast Augmentation And Reconstruction: Exposing The Dangers:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/breastaugmentationandreconstruction/
Breast Implants Are Violence Against Women
Toxic Discovery Network
Pam Young, crippled by conventional cancer treatment

Note by Healing Cancer Naturally, February 2010 & June 2011: most of the links given by Pam Young several years ago no longer work, so they were removed. You may still find the information they contained by putting the above now “unlinked” terms in a search engine.

Drugs affect the aura a great deal. I have seen dark energy forms in the liver left from drugs taken for various previous diseases. Hepatitis leaves an orange-yellow color in the liver years after the disease is supposedly cured. I have seen the radiopaque dye used to observe the spine that was injected into the spinal column to diagnose injury ten years after injection although it is supposed to be cleared by the body in a month or two.

Chemotherapy clogs the whole auric field but especially the liver, with greenish-brown mucus-like energy. Radiation therapy frays the structured layers of the auric field like a burned nylon stocking. Surgery causes scars in the first layer of the field and sometimes all the way to the seventh layer.

These scars, disfigurations and clogs can be healed by helping the physical body heal itself; if they are left distorted, the physical body will have a much more difficult time healing itself. When an organ is removed, the etheric organ can still be reconstructed and serve to keep harmony in the auric bodies above the physical body. I would imagine that someday, with more knowledge of the auric field and biochemistry, we may be able to cause organs that have been removed to grow again.
Ex-NASA physicist Barbara Ann Brennan in her book “Hands of Light”
More in On the effects of drugs, chemotherapy and radiation on the human energy field or aura

I can't imagine going to see a "doctor". I've seen them. They were terrifying and useless and all they did really was light up with joy and anticipation for yet another country club membership when they diagnosed me and gave me various lengths of time to live, as if they were theater critics predicting the run of a play.

The first one I saw, a year ago, gave me until dinner time the same day to live and suggested immediate chemotherapy, so that maybe I could live until brunch the next day. It turned out that the diagnosis (liver cancer) was wrong and it was suggested by a very big deal rotcod (which is doctor spelled backwards) that I have some sort of neuro-endocrine tumours reacting on the liver and I should start chemotherapy, at once.

Well, even rotcods agree that livers despise being burned and slashed. In fact every organ despises being burned and slashed and since that's the only recourse that rotcods possess why on earth should one consult one? I find the atmosphere of all the sanctified white and the self-importance depressing.
H.D., March 2008

An effective program of prevention would render all methods of therapy - orthodox and unorthodox - obsolete.
Ralph W. Moss, PhD.

It is natural for physicians to focus on treatment. A far better focus is prevention.
Giulio J. D'Angio, M.D., former Chairman of the Department of Radiation Therapy, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center

Each time a patient comes in and needs cancer therapy, you could say it was a failure of prevention.
Dr. Samuel Broder, former Director of the National Cancer Institute

The most promising approach to the control of cancer is a national commitment to prevention, with a concomitant rebalancing of the focus and funding of research.
John C. Bailar, MD, PhD, Former Deputy Associate Director for Cancer Control of the National Cancer Institute & Professor at the University of Chicago

No medical man during his student days is taught to think. He is expected to assimilate the thoughts of others and to bow to authority. Throughout the whole of his medical career he must accept the current medical fashions of the day or suffer the loss of prestige and place. No public appointments, no coveted preferments are open to the medical man who declines to parrot the popular shibboleths of his profession.
Dr. Hadwen in his book 'The Difficulties of Dr. Deguerre' on why most doctors will accept and perpetuate the status quo in medical treatment, no matter how unsatisfying or unsuccessful.

Support this site.

Why Alternative Cancer Treatment

On Conventional Oncology (Mainstream Cancer Therapy)

Quotes & facts to be aware of

On Conventional Cancer Treatment (contd. from first page)

Related content