Why Choose Alternative Cancer Treatment? (8)

On Cancer Business & the Cancer Industry

Quotes

Page eight of “Why Choose Alternative Cancer Treatment?” features observations by cancer specialists and other individuals concerned by the “rich” subject of cancer business and industry.

Oncology is one of the most expensive and most profitable fields of medicine.
Stephan Seeßle, MD

We have a multi-billion dollar industry that is killing people, right and left, just for financial gain. Their idea of doing research is to see whether two doses of this poison is better than three doses of that poison.
Glenn A. Warner, MD, former head of the immunotherapy department of the Tumor Institute under Orliss Wildermuth, MD.

There is not one, but many cures for cancer available. But they are all being systematically suppressed by the American Cancer Society, the National Cancer Institute, and the major oncology centers. They have too much of an interest in the status quo.
Dr. Robert C. Atkins, M.D.

To the cancer establishment, a cancer patient is a profit center. The actual clinical and scientific evidence does not support the claims of the cancer industry. Conventional cancer treatments are in place as the law of the land because they pay, not heal, the best. Decades of the politics-of-cancer-as-usual have kept you from knowing this, and will continue to do so unless you wake up to this reality.
John Diamond, MD & Lee Cowden MD

I would eventually realize from William's [stage 4 colon cancer patient] situation that standardized care providers who are given the power to protect the health of Americans are doing exactly what they are accusing the alternative therapists of doing - failing to save patients, while making huge profits from treatments that far too often do not work.
Deborah Walters Childs in her book "A Dose of Reality: Losing William to the Big Business of Cancer in America"

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

Cancer is so difficult to cure because it is so profitable to treat.
Walter Last

I wasn't even aware, as a nurse, that they made money off the chemotherapy I didn't know that and I don't think the majority of nurses know that, we are not really into the business end of it...
Chemotherapy drugs are bought at a discount, wholesale, directly from the drug manufacturer and they are marked up for a profit and sold to the patients or the patients' insurance companies. And about 60 percent of oncologists's revenue roughly comes from the profit off the chemotherapy drug, so it's the only drug in the medical industry that is allowed to be profited on by the doctor, which creates this huge conflict of interest.
... What doctor would give somebody chemo when their functional status is so poor?
A lot of it seems like criminal negligence to me...
They certainly wouldn't do that to their mother, I wouldn't think.
From the interview "Oncology nurse quits after discovering nutrition heals cancer" at www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddADeIsXrOw

...if a doctor realized that standard treatment only appears to help in the short term, started to read the thousands of scientifically validated peer-reviewed studies on the anticancer activity of fruits, vegetables and various herbs and spices and wanted to apply it to his patients starting with a radical change of diet, what would happen to this doctor?
He would get reported to the board, they would sign him up for the loony farm... doctors are not ALLOWED to prescribe anything but chemo, surgery and radiation... even the most caring doctor in the world is trapped in a system that pays him really well to keep doing what they are doing despite the results ... the whole medical system really has been hijacked by the pharmaceutical companies since there is a pill for every ill.
Then they poopoo nutrition, it's ok to say it can prevent disease but dont' you dare say it can actally cure or reverse disease, then you are way out there again. But the fact remains that you can reverse and cure disease with diet.
Summarized from the interview "Oncology nurse quits after discovering nutrition heals cancer" at www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddADeIsXrOw

The medical profession is being bought by the pharmaceutical industry, not only in terms of the practice of medicine, but also in terms of teaching and research. ... The academic institutions of this country are allowing themselves to be the paid agents of the pharmaceutical industry. I think it's disgraceful.
Arnold Seymour Relman (1923 - 2014), Harvard professor of medicine and social medicine and editor of the New England Journal of Medicine (1977-1991) who coined the term "medical–industrial complex", criticising the US-American health care system as a profit-driven industry and "market commodity" provided according to a patient's ability to pay.

Most effective cancer treatments are very inexpensive, and that makes them worthy of suppression. You get extreme doses of this reality when you study Hoxsey - the success of his clinics and the tens of thousands who came to his support when the FDA came after him. The story of Hoxsey is the story of the brutality of profits over humanity, decency, and scientific principle.
Greg Caton in his book Meditopia

[Conventional cancer treatment is] big money. You have to understand that cancer is 1/9th of the overall health budget in the United States. The last figures I have seen from the American Cancer Society of money spent on cancer indirectly or directly at 107 Billion dollars. ... Cancer: we are talking about well over a million [new] cases a year, not counting skin cancer which probably equals that. ... About 630,000 people die every year of cancer in the US, and it really is an epidemic disease. We have got a tremendous industry. Every one of those people who is getting cancer and dying of it is going to be treated, and these treatments are extremely expensive. Chemo is tens of thousands, sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars. A bone marrow transplantation which is basically another way of giving chemotherapy or radiation can run to about 150,000 dollars per person, and is almost never effective. It kills about 25%.. [Why carry on doing it?] Because of the money, which is tremendous. If you look at the board of directors of MSK [Memorial Sloane Kettering] you will find that the drug industry has a dominant position on that board. One company in particular, Bristol Myers, which produces between 40-50% of all the chemotherapy in the world, and they have top positions at MSK hospital. [Doesn't that constitute a serious conflict of interest?] They are selling their own drugs to that particular hospital but they have written into the by-laws of the centre that it does not constitute a conflict of interest to sell their company drugs to the centre. They get around it by not taking a salary. They are not paid, they are volunteers. Look what happens. You have a man like Benno Schmidt, who was first head of the president's cancer panel under Nixon, then becomes head of MSK. He then goes on using the knowledge he gained at MSK to set up his own drug company to make tens of millions of dollars. [Another revolving door.] You bet, and a big one. We have had 50 years of American Cancer Society (ACS) brainwashing on the question of cancer, so most people out there believe we are making progress in the war on cancer. We are not, we are losing the war.
Dr. Ralph Moss on Chemotherapy, Laetrile, Coley's Toxins, Burzynski, & Cancer Politics, Laura Lee radio show, 1994

A control for cancer is known, and it comes from nature, but it is not widely available to the public because it cannot be patented, and therefore is not commercially attractive to the pharmaceutical industry.
G. Edward Griffin, author of World Without Cancer, a book about vitamin B 17 (Laetrile/Amygdalin) against cancer

Friend, I appreciate your concern for the ailing humanity, but in the USA we have perhaps the most criminal Government in the world. It is Goverment policy to maintain ill health, as there is money in it.
Dr. J L Jamison, Mariposa, CA, USA, in a letter to Dr P D Desai of India, quoted in G.K. Thakkar "The Wonders of Uropathy"

ANYTHING created with a vested interest in mind is open to all sorts of corruption, especially when it deals with the emotions and fears of man, as healing undoubtedly does.
Dr Arthur Lincoln Pauls in his book Shivambu Kalpa: The Ancient Healing Way of the Self, By the Self, with Medicine of the Self

All health care practitioners who have developed a cure for cancer from Dr. Coley's toxins in 1900 through Dr. Stanislaw Burzinsky's antineoplastons currently have been greeted with vicious opposition... continuing harassment from lawsuits threatening loss of medical licensure. There have been at least a dozen safe cures for cancer down through he past century of health care that have come and gone without the general public's awareness that they even existed. The cancer industry is so powerful that television, newspapers, and medical journals subsidized by revenue from pharmaceutical advertisements are generally unwilling to admit that these cures have ever existed. Often fabricated articles are published disparaging the safety and effectiveness of the cure thus frightening the general public away from some natural therapy that could make them well.
Dr. James Howenstine, MD

The American public has no idea how politics secretly control the practice of medicine. If a doctor dares to introduce a natural, less costly method, no matter how safe or effective, Organized American Medicine can target this doctor for license revocation using fear tactics and legal maneuverings. Why do holistic therapies threaten medicine? (Firstly) They involve a major change in scientific thought. (Secondly) They imply that current methods are inadequate, and, (Thirdly) they threaten huge profits...
James P. Carter, M.D., Ph.D., author of "Racketeering in Medicine: The Suppression of Alternatives"

An important clue proving that there is no sincere interest in curing cancer is provided by the fact that only .5% (one half of one percent) of the dollars spent on cancer research is spent on research directed at stopping the spread of cancer (metastases). When a cancer fails to spread the patient can live many comfortable years in an uneventful manner.
Dr. James Howenstine, MD

Cancer is no longer a mysterious disease. However, the establishment still presents that image. There are many simple non-toxic effective treatments for cancer. The cost of proving them has been made impossible by the collusion between the FDA and the pharmaceutical industry. The establishment has deliberately used every imaginable and shameful tactic, some of which are even "strong-arm," to discredit, conceal and destroy these therapies. The reasons are clear. The pharmaceutical industry, which profits in the countless billions from their infamous chemotherapy would lose an enormous income if the truth were known.
Robert E Willner MD, PhD

CHEMOTHERAPY: AN UNPROVEN PROCEDURE
In evaluating a therapeutic regimen, the only thing that really matters is death rate - will a treatment significantly extend a patient's life. I'm not talking about life as a vegetable, but the natural healthy independent lifespan of a human being.
Media stories and most articles in medical journals go to great lengths to hide the underlying numbers of people dying from cancer, by talking about other issues. In Questioning Chemotherapy, Dr. Ralph Moss talks about several of the ways they do it:
Response rate is a favorite. If a dying patient's condition changes even for a week or a month, especially if the tumor shrinks temporarily, the patient is listed as having "responded to" chemotherapy. No joke! The fact that the tumor comes back stronger soon after chemo is stopped, is not figured into the equation. The fact that the patient has to endure horrific side effects in order to temporarily shrink the tumor is not considered. That fact that the patient soon dies is not figured into the equation. The idea is to sell, sell, and sell. Sell chemotherapy.
Also in the media we find the loud successes chemotherapy has had on certain rare types of cancer, like childhood leukemia, and Hodgkin's lymphoma. But for the vast majority of cancer cases, chemo is a bust. Worse yet, a toxic one.
Even with Hodgkins, one of chemo's much-trumpeted triumphs, the cure is frequently a success, but the patient dies. He just doesn't die of Hodgkins disease, that's all. In the 1994 Journal of the National Cancer Institute, they published a 47-year study of more than 10,000 patients with Hodgkins lymphoma, who were treated with chemotherapy. Even though there was success with the Hodgkins itself, these patients encountered an incidence of leukemia that was six times the normal rate. This is a very common type of reported success within the cancer industry - again, the life of the patient is not taken into account.
In evaluating any treatment, there must be a benefits/risks analysis. Due to gigantic economic pressures, such evaluation has been systematically put aside in the U.S. chemotherapy industry.
Dr Tim O'Shea in TO THE CANCER PATIENT www.thedoctorwithin.com

It’s difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.
Upton Sinclair

FDA drug approval: eye-opening behind-the-scenes report on FDA advisers‘ industry ties
More than half of the experts hired to advise the government on the safety and effectiveness of medicine have financial relationships with the pharmaceutical companies that will be helped or hurt by their decisions, a USA TODAY study found...The experts are supposed to be independent, but ... 54% of the time, they have a direct financial interest in the drug or topic they are asked to evaluate...Federal law generally prohibits the FDA from using experts with financial conflicts of interest, but the FDA has waived the restriction more than 800 times since 1998...The expert panel's "consumer representative," whose assignment is to defend consumers' interests, had the most extensive financial relationship with Johnson & Johnson.
In recent years, the FDA has followed every advisory committee recommendation to approve or reject a medicine - except once... The federal agency is forbidden from using experts with financial conflicts unless a waiver is granted, usually on the grounds that the experts' value outweighs the seriousness of the conflict. The FDA grants these waivers routinely...Many financial conflicts are considered too small to require disclosure or a waiver and were not counted in USA TODAY's study. For example, a committee member can be paid up to $50,000 a year by a drug company without any financial conflict being disclosed if the work was on a topic other than what the committee is evaluating...Financial conflicts are so common that eight of 10 members who evaluated the drug Aggrastat, made by Merck, had conflicts of interest...
Dennis Cauchon in USA TODAY September 25, 2000, found at mercola.com/2000/oct/1/fda_drug_approvals.htm

I have the answer to cancer, but American doctors won't listen. They come here and observe my methods and are impressed. Then they want to make a special deal so they can take it home and make a lot of money. I won't do it, so I'm blackballed in every country.
Dr. Johanna Budwig

...my mother died of ovarian cancer ... and it had cost my father his entire lifetime of earning. The medical industry took every last dime, drove him into bankruptcy, and provided no positive results whatsoever for my mothher over nearly 2 years. In economics, you supposedly exchange your valuable (money) for another valuable (results). No results means you don't pay or you get your money back. Not in modern medicine.
Peter Parker in his Amazon.com review of the book Cancer: Curing the Incurable Without Surgery, Chemotherapy, or Radiation, by William Donald Kelley

Chemotherapy is an incredibly lucrative business for doctors, hospitals, and pharmaceutical companies… The medical establishment wants everyone to follow the same exact protocol. They don’t want to see the chemotherapy industry go under, and that’s the number one obstacle to any progress in oncology.
Dr Warner, M.D.

...the amount of cytotoxic drugs sold by the pharmaceutical companies... has grown from $3 billion in 1989 to over $13 billion in 1998. (Moss p75) These figures are chemotherapy drugs sales only, not taking into account professional or hospital fees associated with treatment.
Cancer's share of the total US health budget is calculated at 9.8% according to the AHCPR (Agency for Health Care Policy and Research) 1994 figures...9.8% of 1 trillion dollars: that means the cancer industry is turning over about $98 billion per year.
...More people living off cancer than ever died from it...
Dr. Tim O'Shea in TO THE CANCER PATIENT www.thedoctorwithin.com

THE EPIDEMIC OF UNNECESSARY MASTECTOMY:
HOW NOT TO BE A VICTIM
We are living in the age of health scare campaigns.
This is because we have in the U.S. a massive profit-oriented industry involving doctors, hospitals, HMOs, clinics, laboratories, biotechnology companies, researchers, and laboratories.
All of these enterprises are nourished by health scares.
For years, one of the common money-makers for surgery done to women was hysterectomy.
Unfortunately for the promoters of this type of mutilation, the excessive enthusiasm among doctors for it has come to be exposed.
For example, it was reported by the Journal of the American Medical Association (May 12, 1993) that only 58% of a group of 642 hysterectomy cases could be justified as appropriate.
It has become expedient for medical profiteers to develop new markets, and mastectomy has been emerging as the current favored gold mine.
A study reported by Reuters (11/28/00) found that 53% of the mastectomies done on a group of 142 women were unnecessary. This group could have been effectively treated with lumpectomy, but the slash-and-burn surgeons found it more profitable to mutilate them.
Mastectomies create opportunities for their colleagues in the cosmetic breast reconstruction business.
Michael Phillip Wright

Never go to a doctor without knowing what his favourite diagnosis and therapy are. In the end, a doctor is also a company who wants to sell you something.
Lothar Hirneise, eminent alternative and conventional cancer treatment researcher

When Fred Wortman of Albany, Georgia, developed an inoperable malignancy of the intestine, he faced the prospect of long treatments with x radiation "therapy". "The doctors," Mr. Wortman said, "refused to operate when they discovered the condition of my bank balance."
Being a wide reader, he remembered a simple remedy for cancer that was given in a book by a 'Mrs. Brandt', and looked it up. It was rather involved and cumbersome to follow, so he reduced it to its essentials, took the "cure" and was completely cancerfree within a month.
From The Grape Cancer Cure

Mastectomies Generate Income For Plastic Surgeons
”Oncologists continue to recommend mastectomies as a treatment for breast cancer because it fattens the bank book of the plastic surgeons who make millions of dollars from breast reconstructions.
Here's how it goes:
A woman is diagnosed with breast cancer. Her oncologist recommends mastectomy.
She is referred to a plastic surgeon who says that her breast(s) can be reconstructed with breast implants or a "natural" tissue flap.
The woman has the mastectomy and reconstruction and is left disabled, while the oncologist and plastic surgeon laugh all the way to the bank with the woman's insurance money. ...these dark, dirty deeds are still being done by the medical community ...”
Pam Young speaking from her own experience as a wheelchair-bound cripple after mastectomy and breast ”reconstruction” (more at On Avoidable Suffering) originally found at
http://askwaltstollmd.com/wwwboard/messages/120088.shtml

It is startling to discover what chemotherapy drugs are made from. The first ones were made from mustard gas exactly like the weapons that killed so many soldiers in WW I, eventually outlawed by the Geneva Conventions. In the 1930s, Memorial Sloan-Kettering quietly began to treat breast cancer with these mustard gas derivatives. No one was cured. Most of the medical profession at that time regarded such "treatment" of malignant disease as charlatanism.
Nitrogen mustard chemotherapy trials were conducted at Yale around 1943. 160 patients were treated. No one was cured.
The beginning of the hype that promised to cure all cancer by means of chemo drugs, came as an offshoot of the postwar excitement with the success of antibiotics and the sulfa drugs. Caught up in the heady atmosphere of visions of money and power in vanquishing cancer, Memorial Sloan-Kettering began to make extravagant claims that to this day have never been realized. Some 400,000 "cytotoxins" were tested by Sloan-Kettering and the National Cancer Institute. The criteria in order to be tested were: will the toxin kill some of the tumor cells before it kills the patient. That's it! Many were brand new synthetic compounds. But thousands of others were existing poisons which were simply refined. Finally about 50 drugs made the cut, and are the basis of today's chemotherapy medicine cabinet.
One of these 50 is a sheep-deworming agent known as Levamisole. With no major clinical trial ever showing significant increased long term survival with Levamisole, it is still a standard chemotherapy agent even today! The weirdness is, Levamisole was included for its "immune system modulation" properties. However, its major toxicities include:
- decreased white cell count (!) - flu symptoms - nausea - abdominal cramps - dizziness
Some immune booster!
A 1994 major study of Levamisole written up in the British Journal of Cancer showed almost double the survival rate using a placebo instead of Levamisole! The utter mystification over why this poison continues to be used as a standard component of chemo cocktails can be cleared up by considering one simple fact: when Levamisole was still a sheep de-wormer, it cost $1 per year. When the same amount was suddenly upgraded to a cancer drug given to humans, now it costs $1200 per year. Thank you, Johnson & Johnson. (Los Angeles Times 11 Sep 93.)
Dr. Tim O'Shea in TO THE CANCER PATIENT www.thedoctorwithin.com
More on Chemotherapy

Why so much use of chemotherapy if it does so little good? Well for one thing, drug companies provide huge economic incentives. In 1990, $3.53 billion was spent on chemotherapy. By 1994 that figure had more than doubled to $7.51 billion. This relentless increase in chemotherapy use was accompanied by a relentless increase in cancer deaths.
”Chemotherapy Report”

“...the medicine that completely heals is not profitable and therefore is not researched.” (from an Interview with the Nobel Prize for Medicine Richard J. Roberts)

What’s good for the corporate dividends is not always good for people. Pharmaceutical industry wants to serve the capital markets … If you only think about benefits, you stop worrying about serving people. I’ve seen that in some cases researchers dependent on private funds would have discovered a very effective medicine that would have completely eliminated a disease … [but they stopped investigating] because drug companies often are not as interested in healing you as in getting your money, so that investigation, suddenly, is diverted to the discovery of drugs that do not heal completely, but chronify the disease and make you experience an improvement that disappears when you stop taking the drug. It is usual that pharmaceutical companies are interested in research that doesn’t cure but only makes illnesses chronic with more profitable drugs than the ones that would completely cure once and forever. You just need to follow the financial analysis of the pharmaceutical industry and verify what I say. [An example of such abuse:] Investigations with antibiotics have been stopped because they were too effective and completely cured. As no new antibiotics have been developed, infectious organisms have become resistant and today tuberculosis, which in my childhood had been defeated, reappears and has killed this past year a million people. ... Third World diseases are hardly investigated, because the drugs that would fight them are unprofitable. But I’m talking about our First World: the medicine that completely heals is not profitable and therefore is not researched. ...politicians are mere employees of big companies, who invest what is necessary so that “their kids” get elected, and if they are not elected, they buy those who were elected. Money and big companies are only interested in multiply[ing]. Almost all politicians... depend shamelessly on these multinational pharmaceutical companies that fund their campaigns. The rest are words …
Richard J. Roberts

...if one looks closely one sees that there is no essential difference between a beggar’s livelihood and that of numberless respectable people. Beggars do not work, it is said; but, then, what is work? A navvy works by swinging a pick. An accountant works by adding up figures. A beggar works by standing out of doors in all weathers and getting varicose veins, chronic bronchitis, etc. It is a trade like any other; quite useless, of course — but, then, many reputable trades are quite useless. And as a social type a beggar compares well with scores of others. He is honest compared with the sellers of most patent medicines, high-minded compared with a Sunday newspaper proprietor, amiable compared with a hire-purchase tout — in short, a parasite, but a fairly harmless parasite. He seldom extracts more than a bare living from the community, and, what should justify him according to our ethical ideas, he pays for it over and over in suffering. I do not think there is anything about a beggar that sets him in a different class from other people, or gives most modern men the right to despise him. Then the question arises, Why are beggars despised? — for they are despised, universally. I believe it is for the simple reason that they fail to earn a decent living. In practice nobody cares whether work is useful or useless, productive or parasitic; the sole thing demanded is that it shall be profitable. In all the modern talk about energy, efficiency, social service and the rest of it, what meaning is there except ‘Get money, get it legally, and get a lot of it’? Money has become the grand test of virtue. By this test beggars fail, and for this they are despised. If one could earn even ten pounds a week at begging, it would become a respectable profession immediately. A beggar, looked at realistically, is simply a businessman, getting his living, like other businessmen, in the way that comes to hand. He has not, more than most modern people, sold his honour; he has merely made the mistake of choosing a trade at which it is impossible to grow rich.
George Orwell: 'Down and Out in Paris and London'

Non-cooperation with evil is a sacred duty.
Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (1869-1948), Indian political and spiritual leader

Sponsored Links

Related content

For more information on money, pharmaceuticals & cancer, see

Related section

 

Copyright © 2004-2017 healingcancernaturally.com and respective authors.
Unauthorized republishing of content is strictly forbidden. Each and every breach of copyright will be pursued to the fullest extent of the law.
Use of this site signifies your agreement to the disclaimer.