| "Join
us in the quest to keep secure our freedom, our liberty, and
enact justice upon those who corrupt our
government." |
| If you
have a great site you would like to submit, send it to us via
the Contact
page. |
|
| (Originally published in the February/March
issue of "Clamor" magazine under the title "Can You Trust Your
Doctor?") |
| "Everyone
should know that most cancer research is largely a fraud…" -
Linus Pauling Ph.D. (1901-1994) Two times Nobel Prize
winner. |
By the time
that you have finished reading this article, eleven Americans
will have died from cancer. This year, about 1.2 million
Americans will be diagnosed with cancer and some 560,000 will
die from it. The rates have doubled in less than forty years.
In 1971 President Nixon declared the famous "war on cancer".
Thirty years and some thirty billion research dollars later we
are still being prescribed the same three failing treatments;
surgery, chemotherapy and radiation treatment.
Why?
Three Case Studies
My answer begins with a
synopsis of three alternative treatments that have been
suppressed for decades by orthodox medicine. First, I must
stress that none of these treatments is a guaranteed cancer
cure. Some work better with one person than another, depending
on the type of cancer. A vitally important role is one of a
strict nutritional diet.
Royal Raymond Rife
The
first story is about the Rife radio frequency machine. Royal
Raymond Rife was born 1888, in Elkhorn, Nebraska. Rife's
passions were microscopes, microbiology, and electronics. What
is an undisputed fact is Rife's genius in building incredibly
complex light microscopes. Roy built five in total, the
largest and most powerful was his "Universal Microscope" made
with just over 5,200 parts. Electron microscopes today are
more powerful but they kill the minute organisms Rife was
attempting to see. You have to be able to see them alive in
order to identify them and, more importantly, identify what
kills them.
It took Rife about twelve years, between
1920-1932, to isolate the cancer microbe. He named it the BX
virus. Rife began subjecting the cancer microbe to different
radio frequencies to see if it was affected by them. After
experimenting for thousands of hours, Rife discovered what he
called the "Mortal Oscillatory Rate" of the cancer microbe.
Simply, the exact frequency that killed it. Rife successfully
cured cancer in over 400 experimental animals before testing
was ready for humans.
Dr. Millbank Johnson, a close
friend of Rife's, setup the Special Medical Research Committee
to witness what transpired at this first clinic. In the summer
of 1934, sixteen terminally ill cancer patients were given
three minutes of the frequency every day. They soon learned
that this was too much because the human body needed more time
to dispose of the dead toxins. They were given three minutes
every third day. Fourteen of the supposedly terminally ill
patients were clear of cancer and healthy when the clinic
closed after three months. The other two patients were
pronounced cured one month after the clinic closed. There were
very minimal, if any, short term side effects.
Rife
wrote in 1953; "16 cases were treated at the clinic for many
types of malignancy. After 3 months, 14 of these so-called
hopeless cases were signed off as clinically cured by the
staff of five medical doctors and Dr. Alvin G. Foord, M.D.
Pathologist for the group."
In 1937 Rife and some
colleagues established a company called Beam Ray. They
manufactured fourteen Frequency Instruments. Dr. James Couche,
who was present at the clinic, used one of Rife's machines
with great success for 22 years. The most powerful man in
medicine at this time was Dr. Morris Fishbein. He was chief
editor of the American Medical Associations (AMA) Journal.
Fishbein had failed anatomy and never treated a patient in his
life. His only motivation was money and power. He decided
which drugs were to be sold to the public based solely on the
drug manufacturers willingness to pay the advertising rates
that he set. Fishbein heard about Rife's frequency machine and
wanted to buy a share. The offer was refused. He then offered
Phil Hoyland, an investor, legal assistance to enable him to
steal the company from Rife and the other investors. A lawsuit
ensued.
The trial of 1939 put an end to any proper
scientific investigation of the Frequency Instrument. The
trial was the undoing of Rife. Not used to being savagely
attacked in open court he crumbled under the pressure.
Although he won the case, he turned to alcohol and became an
alcoholic. Fishbein used his pervasive power within the AMA to
thwart further investigation of Rife's work. Dr. Millbank
Johnson died in 1944. In 1950 Rife joined up with John Crane
who was an electrical engineer. They worked together for ten
years building more advanced frequency machines. But in 1960
the AMA closed them down. Crane was imprisoned for three years
and a month, even though fourteen patients testified as to the
effectiveness of the machine. Rife died in 1971.
Amygdalin/Laetrile
In 1952 Dr. Ernst Krebs from
San Francisco advanced the theory that cancer is a deficiency
disease, similar to scurvy or pellagra. His theory was that
the cause of the disease was the lack of an essential food
compound in modern-man's diet. He identified it as part of the
nitriloside family which is found in over 1200 edible plants.
Nitriloside, generally referred to as amygdalin, is especially
prevalent in the seeds of apricot, blackthorn cherry,
nectarine, peach, apples and others.
The best way for
Krebs to prove his theory would be to have thousands of people
eat a diet very high in amygdalin and monitor them. An
enormously costly exercise to say the least. Fortunately for
Krebs, the experiment had already been carried out. Nestled
between W. Pakistan, India and China is the tiny kingdom of
Hunza. The people of Hunza consume 200 times more amygdalin in
their diet than the average American. Visiting medical teams
found them cancer free. In 1973 Prince Mohammed Khan, son of
the Mir of Hunza told Charles Hillinger of the LA Times the
average age of his people is about 85. More importantly, they
live vigorous and mentally alert lives up until a few days
before they die.
Only in recent years have the first
few Hunza cancer cases been reported. That is due to a narrow
road being carved in the mountain and food from the
"civilized" world is reaching Hunza. In the 1970s the FDA
mounted a widespread and erroneous media campaign alleging
that amygdalin is toxic and dangerous because it contains
cyanide. Yes, it does, in minute quantities. If you eat the
seeds from a hundred apples in a day you risk serious side
effects, possibly death. If you eat enormous amounts of
anything you run serious health risks. Aspirin is twenty times
more toxic than the same amount of amygdalin.
Orthodox
medicine says that Laetrile (a purified form of amygdalin
developed by Dr. Krebs) was thoroughly tested and found to be
worthless. The longest and most famous Laetrile tests ever
performed were run for nearly five years at Americas most
prestigious cancer research center, Memorial Sloan-Kettering
Cancer Center in New York. At the conclusion of the trials, on
June 15, 1977, they released a press statement. The press
release read;
"...Laetrile was found to possess neither
preventative, nor tumor-regressent, nor anti-metastatic, nor
curative anticancer activity."
So that is it then,
right? It does not get more adamant than that, we can close
the book on Laetrile. Unfortunately for the officials at
Sloan-Kettering there was an unforeseen problem. When a
journalist asked Dr. Kanematsu Sugiura; "Do you stick by your
belief that Laetrile stops the spread of cancer"? He replied,
"I stick." Those two words were a major embarrassment to the
accumulated demigods on the dais. The reason being is that Dr.
Kanematsu Sugiura was the preeminent cancer researcher in
America, probably the world, at this time. Nobody had ever
questioned Sugiura's data in over sixty years of cancer
research before. Sugiura was asked why Sloan-Kettering was
against Laetrile.
"Why are they so much against it"?
Sugiura answered "I don't know. Maybe the medical profession
doesn't like it because they are making too much
money."
Sugiura had to be proven wrong. But other
researchers had obtained essentially the same positive
results. Dr. Lloyd Schloen a biochemist at Sloan-Kettering had
included proteolytic enzymes to his injections and reported
100% cure rate among his albino mice. This data had to be
buried. They then changed the protocols of the tests and
amounts of Laetrile to make certain that they failed. Not
surprisingly, they failed, and that is what they
reported.
Sloan-Kettering's motives were clearly revealed
in the minutes of a meeting that top officials held on July 2,
1974. The discussions were private and candid. The fact that
numerous Sloan-Kettering officials were convinced of the
effectiveness of amygdalin is obvious, they just were not sure
as to the degree of its effectiveness. But they were not
interested in further testing of this natural product. The
minutes read; "...Sloan-Kettering is not enthusiastic about
studying amygdalin [Laetrile] but would like to study CN
(cyanide)-releasing drugs."
Sloan-Kettering wanted a
man-made patentable chemical to mimic the qualities found in
amygdalin, because that is where the money is. If a very
effective cancer treatment or cure was found in the lowly
apricot seed, it would spell economic disaster for the cancer
industry.
The Hoxsey Remedies
Harry Hoxsey, born
1901, was an ex-coalminer with an 8th grade education. From
the 1920s to the 1950s Harry Hoxsey and his natural remedies
would wage the fiercest battle with conventional medicine this
country has ever seen. The remedies were handed down by
Harry's great grandfather, John Hoxsey. John, a veterinarian,
had observed a horse he owned heal itself of cancer by eating
certain herbs in his pasture. John used the herbs to heal
other animals of cancer.
Over the years other natural
products were added and the remedy was tried on humans. The
Hoxsey treatment comprised of two components. A herbal tonic
which cleansed the body and boosted the immune system and an
external paste for tumors outside the body. Harry opened his
first clinic in Dallas in 1924. By 1950 he was the largest
privately owned cancer clinic in America, represented in
seventeen States. Although thousands of cancer patients swore
that Hoxsey had cured them of cancer, Harry was branded a
"quack" and charlatan by the medical community.
Dallas
District Attorney, Al Templeton, detested Hoxsey and arrested
him an unprecedented one hundred times in two years. Hoxsey
would bail himself out within a day or two because Templeton
could never persuade any of Harry's patients to testify
against him. Templeton vowed to put Hoxsey away for good,
until his own brother secretly used the Hoxsey therapy. His
cancer disappeared and Templeton gave Hoxsey the credit. In a
startling about face, Al Templeton became Hoxsey's lawyer and
one of his greatest advocates. In 1939, Esquire magazine
writer James Wakefield Burke was asked to write a piece on
Hoxsey and expose him as a quack. James recalls; "I came to
Texas, I expected to stay about a day, get my information, and
leave. I became fascinated. I stayed for six weeks, every day
Harry would pick me up, bring me to the clinic. "...He would
put his arm around these old men and woman, say, "Dad, them
doctors been cutting you up, I ain't gonna let them
sons-o-bitches kill you...He'd treat them and they'd get
better and begin to get well."
James wrote an article
entitled, "The Quack That Cured Cancer," but Esquire did not
publish it. The late Mildred Nelson treated people with the
Hoxsey method for some fifty years, but initially she also
thought Hoxsey was a fraud. Mildred's mother, Della, had
contracted uterine cancer and orthodox medicine had given up
on her. Mildred's mother and father wanted to try the Hoxsey
treatment. Mildred recalls trying to talk them out of
it;
"...I thought well, I'll talk mum out of it you
know...they didn't budge. So I thought, well, I'll go down
there and see what's going on, then I can get them out of
it."
"I called Harry and asked him if he still needed a
nurse, "I sure do, be here in the morning." ...By the end of a
year I began to realize, gee this does help, mum had gotten
better and to this day is alive and sassy as can
be."
Mildred Nelson and James Burke had done something
the National Cancer Institute has never done; investigate
Hoxsey and his treatments first hand. They found him to be a
caring and effective healer who was not profiting from cancer
patients. Harry had swore on his fathers death bed that
everyone would have access to the remedy, regardless of their
ability to pay. As Harry said; "I don't have to do this kind
of work, I've got more oil wells than a lot of men call
themselves big producers...Any man that would traffic on sick,
dying, limp the lame or the blind caused from cancer is the
worst scoundrel on earth."
Still, the Hoxsey treatment
does not work for everybody. Ironically, Hoxsey himself
contracted prostate cancer, but had to resort to surgery when
his remedies did not work for him. It was not long before the
infamous Morris Fishbein of the AMA heard about the Hoxsey
treatment and wanted to buy sole rights to it, with some other
AMA doctors. Hoxsey would only agree if it stated in the
contract that everyone would have access to the treatments,
not just a wealthy few. Fishbein refused and so began a
25-year battle, fought in the media, between Fishbein and
Hoxsey.
The mudslinging culminated in a lawsuit brought
by Hoxsey against Fishbein. Much to everyone's amazement,
Hoxsey won the case. Even so, in the late 1950's the FDA
closed down all of Hoxsey's clinics. Mildred Nelson took the
treatment to Tijuana Mexico in 1963. Mildred treated thousands
of patients with cancer until her death (her sister has taken
over) in 1999. By all accounts, Mildred was one of the finest,
most compassionate caregivers you are ever likely to find.
While thousands state that Mildred cured them of cancer and
with medical records to prove it, the National Cancer
Institute turns a blind eye.
Mainstream Medicine vs.
Alternative Treatments
So, what does mainstream
medicine say about alternative cancer treatments in general?
The Pavlovian response is a rather supercilious, "They rely on
anecdotal evidence which is not scientific."
Scientists
attempt to sweep all patient testimony, verified by a doctor
or not, into the realms of myth and legend. They tell us that
in order to test the efficacy of a cancer treatment it must be
subjected to the rigor of countless double blind studies,
clinical trials and peer review groups. In theory this sounds
fine, but in practice several flaws become apparent. In fifty
years of cancer research and umpteen experiments, no headway
has been made in finding an effective treatment or cure for
the deadliest cancers. The incidence of cancer is continually
on the rise.
Another point is that these supposed
exacting scientific drug trials are in fact nothing of the
sort. Clinical oncologists have an obvious vested interest in
producing positive results from cancer drug trials. Controlled
clinical trials are appropriately named because it is the
scientist who controls the outcome. Scientists are under
enormous pressure by the pharmaceutical companies to produce
the "right" results. There are obvious cases of outright fraud
as you will see in the Tamoxifen trials (also see May 16, 1999
New York Times article). There is also intentional and
unintentional bias such as not following the protocols of the
experiment, burying negative results, patient selection and
statistical interpretation.
I see another factor here
that has far more to do with human nature than science. By
trying to exclude first person testimony, scientists try to
control the path to truth. Only they have access to more
exacting truths through their complex procedures and mounds of
statistics. Nonsense, scientists have not copyrighted truth.
They are fallible men and woman who have fallen for some ages
old human pitfalls; extreme arrogance and the craving for more
power. I will take the word of a relative or friend who has
cancer and no ax to grind, over these scientists with all
their personnel and political interests to serve.
The
Establishment
Now I turn my attention to the cancer
establishment. The agencies involved are the National Cancer
Institute (NCI), the American Cancer Society (ACS), the
Federal Drug Administration (FDA) and the American Medical
Association. These agencies have a long history of endemic
corruption and conflict of interest with the pharmaceutical
industry. I will begin with the cancer establishments three
primary treatments; surgery, chemotherapy and radiation
treatment.
Surgery has been around for centuries and is
the most successful. Surgery is most effective against
localized tumors, a small percentage of cancer patients. If
the cancer has spread to other parts of the body, it is far
less successful. If during surgery only one cancer cell
reenters the blood stream, cancer often starts again. How many
times have cancer sufferers heard the words, "we got it all",
only to find a few months later that it has
returned.
Chemotherapy drugs were derived from the
mustard gas experiments during World War I and World War II.
They were heavily promoted in the early 1950s by Cornelius
Rhoads, head of the newly formed Sloan-Kettering Center for
Cancer Research. Chemotherapy is toxic, causes cancer and
wrecks the immune system. Cancer patients often die from
opportunistic infections, or from the drugs themselves due to
their high toxicity.
Alan C. Nixon Ph.D., past president of
the American Chemical Society writes, "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."
Chemotherapy has had good
results with a few rare cancers, about five percent of cancer
patients yearly. But according to author Ralph Moss, the drugs
were given to at least 700,000 people in 1991. It is alarming
to note that very few doctors would take their own medicine if
they contracted cancer. In one survey of 118 doctors, 79
responded. Fifty-eight (73 percent) said they would never take
any chemotherapy due to its high toxicity and ineffectiveness.
The pharmaceutical companies are making a fortune though.
Chemotherapy drug sales were 3.1 billion in 1989, by 1995 they
had almost tripled to 8.6 billion. Predicted sales in 1999
were 13.7 billion.
The final option, radiation
treatment, has similar side effects to chemotherapy. Its
effectiveness is difficult to judge due to the fact that it is
most often given to patients after surgery. It may have some
use against a few rare cancers, but is given to hundreds of
thousands. There is a multibillion-dollar investment in
radiation equipment throughout America's hospitals and
enormous profits to be made by using it.
Another grubby
secret of the cancer establishment is their definition of the
word "cured." According to them you are "cured" if you remain
cancer free for five years. If the cancer returns in six or
eight years, then that becomes a new case to be "cured" all
over again. This brings about the absurd situation of some
people being "cured" two or three times in a twenty-year
period. The fact is of course that they were never cured at
all, just sent into lengthy remissions. But it is a convenient
way for the cancer establishment to artificially inflate their
success rates.
The National Cancer Institute
The
NCI was established in 1937 and was supposed to find a cancer
cure or effective treatment. In over sixty years there have
been some small successes with rarer cancers and some
technological advances. But for most cancer patients the
chances of surviving have not changed since the 1950s.
It would be great if the NCI was even half as good at
controlling cancer as their public relations department is at
pronouncing its imminent demise. Over the years there have
been dozens of headline smashing "miracle" drugs which
invariably failed to perform anywhere close to the hyperbole.
In the mid 1960s Dr. Lawrence Burton produced a very promising
treatment called Immuno-Augmentative Therapy. The treatment
boosted the patient's immune system. He moved the treatment to
the Bahamas in 1977. Burton claimed the NCI tried to steal his
formula and then take credit for it.
Dr. John Beaty
sent twenty advanced cancer patients to Burton's clinic. Ten
experienced tumor regression. According to Beaty, "All ten owe
their survival to Dr. Burton's treatment..."
In 1985
the newspapers carried the story that Burton's treatment had
become infected with the AIDS virus. The clinic was closed
down. Shortly afterwards it was revealed that a top NCI
official had spread lies which were published in the AMA
journal and in the press in order to close the clinic down. In
1987 Dr. Vincent DeVita, head of NCI from 1980-1988,
recommended to 13,000 cancer specialists in North America to
give chemotherapy and surgery to all woman with breast cancer,
regardless of whether it had spread. DeVita was a Chemotherapy
specialist.
Dr. Alan Levin of the University of
California put the argument against DeVita bluntly: "Most
cancer patients in this country die of
Chemotherapy."
In 1988 DeVita left NCI for a 400,000 a
year position with Sloan-Kettering in New York as
physician-in-chief of the cancer research area. A major
scandal rocked the NCI in 1994 when the Chicago Tribune broke
the story of large-scale fraud in the Tamoxifen drug trials.
Dr. Bernard Fisher was in charge of the taxpayer funded (about
68 million dollars) National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and
Bowel Project of NCI. Fisher used data he knew to be
fraudulent in an article published in the New England Journal
of Medicine. Samuel Broder, director of the NCI, was also
informed about the fraud but remained silent.
Tamoxifen
received enormous media exposure thanks to the NCI. They
stated that in clinical trials it had a success rate of
preventing cancer in 45 percent of the woman who took part in
the trials. But two smaller trials of Tamoxifen in England and
Italy showed no preventative benefit. Tamoxifen may just delay
the onset of breast cancer. The NCI hardly mentions (if at
all, I could not find any mention of it on their website.
Gavin) the fact that Tamoxifen is a known carcinogen. It
increases the risk of uterine cancer for woman under fifty by
two times and woman over fifty by four times, as well as other
serious side effects. Yet this drug is approved for cancer
prevention in healthy woman. After the embarrassing Tamoxifen
episode, NCI director Samuel Broder resigned in 1995. He took
a position at Ivax, Inc., a company producing chemotherapy
drugs. His salary is approximately twice what he was earning
at the NCI.
Another little known fact is that many
drugs developed by the NCI, at taxpayer expense, are then
handed over to pharmaceutical companies who reap the massive
profits. A good example of this is the anticancer drug Taxol
which was approved in 1992. The NCI had spent a fortune on
clinical trials and developing the drugs' manufacturing
process. They then gave exclusive rights to Bristol-Myers
Squibb who charge us $4.87 per milligram, twenty times what it
costs to make.
The American Cancer
Society
Formed in 1913, the ACS was reorganized in
1944. The new leadership comprised of Albert Lasker, an
advertising tycoon and Elmer Bobst, president of two drug
companies. Albert Lasker's wife, Mary, ran the ACS for thirty
some years. Mary was only interested in researching profit
motivated patentable drugs. The big payoff for Mary came in
December 1971, when President Nixon signed into law the "war
on cancer." During the decade of the 1970s Mary Lasker and
prominent private cancer research hospitals such as Memorial
Sloan-Kettering ruled the national cancer program.
The
ACS has a committee to identify any doctor prescribing
treatments that are not endorsed by them.
For years,
the ACS's Committee on Unproven Methods of Cancer Management
and the AMA's Committee on Quackery (disbanded 1974)
collaborated in persecuting anyone threatening the status quo.
According to journalist Ruth Rosenbaum, they "form a network
of vigilantes prepared to pounce on anyone who promotes a
cancer therapy that runs against their substantial prejudices
and profits." Samuel Epstein writes about the ACS's Committee
on Unproven Methods of CancerManagement; "Periodically, the
committee updates it's statements on "unproven methods"...Once
a clinician or oncologist becomes associated with "unproven
methods", he or she is blackballed by the cancer
establishment. Funding for the accused "quack" becomes
inaccessible, followed by systematic harassment." What happens
to the hundreds of millions of dollars the ACS collects every
year? In September 1990, a study by Dr. James T. Bennett of
George Mason University concluded; "The American Cancer
Society...had a fund balance of $426.2 million in 1988, and it
held net investments (after depreciation) in land, buildings
and equipment of $69 million. That same year, the ACS spent
only $89.2 million, or 26 percent of its budget on medical
research."
In January 1995 "The Phoenix New Times"
wrote a lengthy investigative article about the Arizona
chapter of the ACS. They found that in 1994 the Arizona ACS
had only given $47,183, out of the millions raised, directly
to people suffering with cancer. A staggering 95% of
funds received went to salaries and overhead.
The ACS
is famous for making highly exaggerated and misleading
statements. On March 15, 1987, the ACS officially announced,
"Caught early enough, breast cancer has cure rates approaching
100 percent." There is no such thing as a cure for breast
cancer, only survival rates. As Dr. Dean Burk said, "They
(ACS) lie like scoundrels."
The ACS and NCI have been
intertwined since the 1950s. About half of the ACS board is
comprised of oncologists, radiologists, clinicians and others
with a vested interest in traditional cancer research. Key ACS
and NCI officials often sit on each others committees. ACS
board members and their colleagues receive grants from one or
both institutions. This old boys network maintains the status
quo and guarantees that the vast majority of funding stays
within orthodox medicine.
The Federal Drug
Administration
In 1970, former FDA commissioner Dr.
Herbert Ley said, "The thing that bugs me is that the people
think the FDA is protecting them. It isn't. What the FDA is
doing and what the public thinks it is doing are as different
as night and day."
In 1974 eleven FDA scientists testified
in the Senate "...That they were harassed by agency
officials...Whenever they recommended against approval of
marketing some new drug."
The FDA's generic drug
scandal hit the news in 1989. Several FDA reviewers were
accepting bribes from some drug companies to speed their drugs
through the process and derail those submitted by competing
companies. According to a Tuft's University study released in
1990, it now takes 12 years and costs 231 million dollars to
research, test and obtain approval for a new drug. Because of
the FDA's glacially slow and inept bureaucracy, many
potentially useful drugs cannot be brought to market due to
the excessive cost and time involved.
A battle being
fought now epitomizes how far the FDA will go in order to
protect the drug companies profits. For over a year Jim and
Donna Navarro have fought the FDA for the right to give their
five year old son, Thomas, an alternative treatment. Thomas
suffers with Medulloblastoma, a type of malignant brain
cancer. After surgery, chemotherapy was recommended. Jim and
Donna asked what the side effects were.
"...Fluid on
the middle ear, hearing loss, memory loss, hyperthyroidism,
spinal growth deficit..." The list went on. Worse, permanent
retardation. Jim and Donna researched their son's cancer for
thousands of hours. They found Dr. Burzynski's treatment
(antineoplastons) in Houston, that has had some very good
success with this type of brain cancer, with minimal
short-term side effects.
The FDA has been persecuting
Dr. Burzynski for over 15 years. They refuse to allow
Burzynski to treat Thomas until he has undergone chemotherapy
and radiation treatment first. Jim and Donna pleaded with the
FDA commissioner Jane Henney, her superior Donna Shalala and
several politicians, all to no avail. The FDA would rather see
Thomas Navarro dead than taking the medicine of his parents
choice. The FDA's motives are explicitly clear. Prominent FDA
officials protect the pharmaceutical company's profit margins
and are later rewarded with lucrative positions within those
same companies. As Burzynski says; "The past commissioner of
the FDA-now he is an official of one of the large
pharmaceutical companies, with a salary of 2 million a
year."
If the FDA allow Thomas Navarro access to
Burzynski's treatment they open the door to other people
demanding the same option. Very soon people will want the
right to choose any alternative treatment. That is a road the
FDA definitely does not want to go down.
The American
Medical Association
The AMA is responsible for
licensing of all Doctors in America. They play an important
role in suppressing alternative treatments by networking with
the ACS and FDA in identifying and punishing doctors that step
out of line.
Since Morris Fishbein's day the AMA has
relied on the revenue received from drug manufacturers to
advertise in their various medical journals.
On
February 6, 1973, two former chairman and 1 vice chair of the
AMA's council on drugs testified before Congress and said that
the AMA was, "...A captive of and beholden to the
pharmaceutical industry." In 1987 the AMA was found guilty of
conspiring for 20 years to destroy the profession of
chiropractitioners.
The War On Cancer
The
supposed "war on cancer" is little more than a grand illusion
conjured up by the cancer establishments propaganda gurus. The
formula is eons old. Repeatedly chisel your message into
peoples psyches; "cancer breakthrough", "scientists say they
are "...Turning the tide on cancer." We become unwitting human
satellites, bouncing the deception from one person to
another.
There never was a determined, no holds-barred
war on cancer. There is a fanatical and hate-filled war being
waged against the few courageous doctors and innovative
healers who prescribe natural treatments. There is a war of
protectionism. Protecting the status quo, protecting the grant
money trough, and above all, protecting the pharmaceutical
cartels' monopoly. There have been at least a dozen very
encouraging cancer treatments in the last seventy years. The
Rife frequency machine, Laetrile, Hoxsey, Antineoplastons,
Coley's Toxins, Glyoxylide, Hydrazine Sulfate, Krebiozen,
Immuno-Augmentative Therapy, Dr. Max Gerson's Diet, to name a
few. They all have two things in common. The people advocating
the therapy are branded charlatans or quacks and the treatment
is denounced as worthless by scientists who have been selling
us out for generations.
A radical change in cancer
research is needed. The natural, nutritional and other
innovative approaches should be studied and made available to
cancer patients immediately. Most important, we must have
medical freedom of choice. For us to achieve those changes, we
have to overcome a far tougher opponent than cancer. A battle
Royal against the $110 billion a year cancer industry.
Ultimately, our greatest enemy is apathy.
To succeed,
we will need people willing to step up to the plate and speak
out, undeterred by being labeled politically incorrect. People
with plenty of good old fashioned guts, character and an iron
will to see it through until the job is done. We will
prevail. It's inevitable. Because when good woman and men put
their minds to something, the mightiest walls of oppression
can and will be shattered.
References for this
article can be found at
http://www.cancerinform.org/refs1.html
Find out more at
http://www.cancerinform.org/index.html
"I traveled
extensively in my mid-20's. I have an eclectic, insatiable
curiosity and constantly question conventional wisdom and the
so-called experts. I have found both to be severely wanting. I
adore my two-year-old daughter, love writing, the movies,
reading and laughing. Let us help and learn from each other.
Thanks, Gavin."
http://www.cancerinform.org
E-mail:
freee95@yahoo.com | |
|
