|
The Four Parts of Any Truth Table
If you are married, there is a greater than 60% probability that either you or your spouse (or both) is going to be diagnosed with cancer in your lifetimes! That percentage keeps going up!Perhaps, whether you have cancer or not, you wanted to know the truth about whether alternative cancer treatments or orthodox cancer treatments were more effective, safer, less painful, etc. If you understood the process of finding the truth, you would go through the four steps of the "truth table." 1) Learn the good things about orthodox cancer treatments, from
the orthodox medicine supporters. and you would (this line represents the symbolic "fence" between orthodox medicine and alternative medicine): 3) Learn the good things about alternative cancer
treatments, from the alternative medicine supporters. On one side of the "fence" are the people who represent orthodox medicine, who will gladly tell you the good things about orthodox medicine and the bad things about alternative medicine. On the other side of the fence are the alternative medicine representatives. If you were an expert on what the people on both sides of the fence were saying (i.e. you were an expert in all four items in the truth table), then you would be in a position to make an intelligent decision about which side has the best treatments. The problem is that when people have heard the good things about orthodox medicine and the bad things about alternative medicine, they think they are experts on both subjects!! But they are not experts in either subject because they have only heard the arguments from one side of the fence. Thousands of times you have heard how wonderful orthodox doctors are via: shows such as M*A*S*H, Marcus Welby, MD, other doctor and hospital TV shows, news programs, magazines, advertisements, etc. These things naturally transfer to you believing that orthodox cancer treatments must also be wonderful (i.e. truth table #1). And you have no doubt heard dozens of bad things about alternative cancer treatments (truth table #2). Notice from the above table that both of these items come from orthodox medicine supporters. In other words, you have heard all of these things from the same side of the fence. You have probably never heard anything bad about orthodox cancer treatments (truth table #4), and in all likelihood you have never heard anything good about alternative cancer treatments (truth table #3). Why haven't you heard very much, if anything, from alternative medicine supporters? When you have only heard from the people on one side of the fence for your entire life, you should wonder why!
Is what you hear in the media based on who has the most truth or is it based on who has the most money? To demonstrate just how one-sided your information has been, answer these two questions. First, when was the last time you saw a dramatic show on a major television network where the hero was an alternative medicine practitioner who was making alternative cancer treatments look safe and effective? Second, name 10 of the most effective alternative cancer treatments? What you are about to read will contradict everything you have heard in your life. Your natural reaction at times will be disbelief. But if you are willing to spend the next hour reading this article (i.e. about truth table #3 and truth table #4), it could very well lead to a journey that will save your life or the life of a loved one! This is a public service website, so I have no financial interest in your decision. However, after studying all four parts of the above truth table for hundreds of hours, I am certain it will be in your best interests to continue reading. Before going on, let us first clarify a key point. Some readers
probably think that this article is about comparing: While this would be an interesting topic, it has nothing to do with this article. This article is about comparing: In other words, this article is about using alternative cancer treatments, meaning the use of natural substances, instead of orthodox treatments. Welcome to truth table #3 and truth table #4. You need to start thinking about natural substances as a complete, stand-alone treatment for cancer.
How the Body Routinely Deals With Cancer CellsFirst of all, everyone on this planet, even newborn infants, have cancerous cells in their body. Even healthy athletes have tens of thousands of new cancer cells created every day in their bodies. This is usually not a problem, however, because the body is designed to routinely kill cancer cells. There are, in fact, many ways that the body kills cancer cells. A person "gets cancer" when the person's immunity system is overwhelmed by cancer cells, particularly in a single area of the body, or if the immunity system is severely depressed. These things can happen for many different reasons, but remember that for most people the body routinely kills cancer cells. Let us talk about one way the body kills cancer cells. There are two key enzymes created by the pancreas, that deal with cancer, called trypsin and chymotrypsin. When the pancreas creates these enzymes they are put directly into the intestines. These two enzymes are frequently called: serine proteases, pancreatic proteases or proteolytic enzymes. Their job is to break apart or cut proteins or other enzymes, particularly as part of the digestion of meat proteins. But cancer cells are "coated" with a protein and trypsin and chymotrypsin also breaks apart this protein as well. I quote from the book: Alive and Well:
Surprisingly, the first job of trypsin and chymotrypsin is to digest proteins, especially meat proteins. They only get into the act of fighting cancer if there are enough of them left over after digestion. After they do their job cutting down the proteins surrounding cancer cells, the white blood cells know the cells are cancerous and can easily kill the cancer cells. Thus, one way of killing cancer cells is the combination of trypsin, chymotrypsin and white blood cells. The second natural defense against cancer are the foods we eat that contain nutrients that kill cancer cells. One of the nutrients that is known to kill cancer cells has several different names: laetrile, amygdalin (this is the official medical term), Vitamin B17 or nitrilosides. Laetrile was discovered several decades ago. Now we know of dozens of nutrients that kill cancer cells. But let us first talk about laetrile. Vitamin B17 is a compound molecule composed of: 2 glucose molecules, 1 benzaldehyde molecule and 1 molecule of organic hydrogen cyanide. You may have heard that laetrile is toxic. Actually, laetrile is twenty times less toxic than sugar. Both the benzaldehyde and organic hydrogen cyanide are known to independently kill cancer cells, but the benzaldehyde is the most effective of the two. I quote from the internet:
This is how Vitamin B17 or laetrile works:
Laetrile is an amazing compound nutrient that was designed by Mother Nature to kill cancer cells when it comes into contact with them. Unfortunately, people today get far less laetrile in their foods that the people of 100 years ago. This is mainly because grains such as millet and buckwheat are rarely consumed anymore. People also eat far less non-citrus fruits, with their seeds, such as red raspberries, than they did in past years. We now know of many nutrients in foods, mainly fruits and vegetables, that are capable of killing cancer cells. For example, purple concord grapes (including their seeds and skins) contain more than a dozen different nutrients scientifically proven to kill cancer cells, one of which is laetrile (found in their seeds). In reality, cancer cells are fairly easy to selectively kill. If there is too much oxygen around a cancer cell, it will die (this is the basis for several alternative treatment plans, such as hydrogen peroxide therapy - which requires food grade hydrogen peroxide, not the contaminated product you buy at stores). If the alkaline level in a cancer cell gets too high, it will die (this is also the basis for several different treatment plans, such as cesium chloride). Thus, even though we all have new cancer cells forming daily, most people under 50 do not have "cancer." However, as we age certain chemical changes take place in our body (e.g. far less oxygen gets to the cells) and the ability to keep "cancer" away gets more difficult. Natural cancer treatments, more commonly called "alternative cancer treatments," generally work by building the immunity system, consuming foods with natural substances that kill cancer cells, getting more oxygen to the cancer cells, making the cancer cells alkaline, etc. But there are other ways that alternative cancer treatments work. For example, one treatment plan, the Breuss diet, starves the cancer cells to death while not harming normal cells. Before going on, let us see how much you know about truth table #3 and truth table #4.
An Alternative Cancer Treatment QuizLet's find out what you know about alternative treatments: Question #1: Dr. Ewan Cameron, and two-time Nobel Prize winner Linus Pauling, did studies in Scotland (which were duplicated by studies in Canada and Japan) comparing Vitamin C therapy to chemotherapy. Which group of patients, the ones on vitamin C or chemotherapy, lived longer on average, and by how much? Question #2: An American alternative cancer treatment doctor treated 33,000 cancer patients, most of whom had been given up for dead by orthodox medicine and had been sent home to die. What was his verified cure rate? Question #3: Fill in the blank: "In a review of 206 human studies, [which food] consistently emerged as one of the top cancer-fighting foods." Question #4: How many Nobel Prize discoveries (and when were they awarded) did Dr. Johanna Budwig use to help her develop the Flaxseed Oil (omega 3) / Cottage Cheese (sulphur proteins) cancer treatment? Question #5: It is absurd to think that a person can be cured of cancer simply by changing their diet. Only professionals can cure cancer. True or false? Let's answer these questions.
Question #1Question #1: Dr. Ewan Cameron, and two-time Nobel Prize winner Linus Pauling, did studies in Scotland (which were duplicated by studies in Canada and Japan) comparing Vitamin C therapy to chemotherapy. Which group of patients, the ones on vitamin C or chemotherapy, lived longer on average, and by how much? Answer: The vitamin C patients lived an average of six times longer than the chemotherapy patients. I don't know why anyone would be surprised at this result. Cancer in many cases is nothing but a symptom of a weakened immunity system. Chemotherapy virtually destroys an already weakened immunity system, and it is the immunity system that deals with cancer on a normal basis. On the other hand, Vitamin C helps build the immunity system. It makes sense that someone who has had their immunity system built up would outlive someone who had their immunity system destroyed.
Question #2Question #2: An American alternative cancer treatment doctor treated 33,000 cancer patients, most of whom had been given up for dead by orthodox medicine and had been sent home to die. What was his verified cure rate? Answer: Dr. William Donald Kelley, a dentist by training, had a 93% cure rate. This cure rate was verified by a 5-year study by an orthodox doctor. His technique is called "metabolic" therapy, and guess what, it was designed to build the immunity system. But what is of even more significance is the answer to this question: "if we factor out all of his patients who went to orthodox doctors before they went to Dr. Kelley, and only counted those who went to Dr. Kelley first, what would his cure rate have been? If we assume that his cure rate for patients who went to him first was as high as his cure rate for those of his patients who went to orthodox medicine first, the answer would be that his cure rate would be at least 93%, probably higher! This is a logical conclusion for three reasons: In other words, it is obvsious that if 10,000 new cancer patients, who had not had any orthodox treatments, went to Dr. Kelley first, his overall cure rate for these people would be at least 93%, probably higher! That is far, far higher than the patients who go to orthodox medicine first. His reward by orthodox medicine for his high cure rate was to be thrown in jail. Kelley also had to move his treatment to Mexico. Fortunately, he has written a book about his treatment: Cancer, Curing The Incurable Without Surgery, Chemotherapy or Radiation and he currently has a web site.
Question #3Question #3: Fill in the blank: "In a review of 206 human studies, [which food] consistently emerged as one of the top cancer-fighting foods." Answer: Here is the complete quote: "In a review of 206 human studies, carrots consistently emerged as one of the top cancer-fighting foods. The power of carrots lies in the group of pigments called carotenoids (beta-carotene is among this group), which give them their orange color." While it is nice that scientists have made this discovery, carrots were used to cure cancer long before any of the 206 human studies the quote refers to. Raw vegetable juices, with raw carrots as the main ingredient, coupled with a customized vegan diet, as a replacement for the meat and dairy centered "Western" diet, has cured many, many thousands of people of cancer. I might add that carrot juice is the main ingredient in the vegetable juice that serves at the heart of the "Raw Food Diet," for which there is an article on this web site.
Question #4Question #4: How many Nobel Prize discoveries (and when were they awarded) did Dr. Johanna Budwig use to help her develop the Flaxseed Oil (omega 3) / Cottage Cheese (sulphur proteins) cancer treatment? Answer: Two Nobel Prizes, Dr. Otto Warburg (1931) and Dr. Albert Szent-Gyorgyi (1937). First, Dr. Warburg:
Second, Dr. Szent-Gyorgyi:
http://www.healingdaily.com/conditions/cancer-prevention-measures.htm Note that both of these Nobel Prizes were awarded in the 1930s. Dr. Budwig developed a diet to combine these two discoveries into one simple treatment plan - flaxseed oil and cottage cheese. Her treatment has cured untold thousands of cancer patients.
Question #5Question #5: It is absurd to think that a person can be cured of cancer simply by changing their diet. Only professionals can cure cancer. True or false? Answer: I quote from alternative medicine expert Walter Last:
The vast majority of cancer patients who go into "spontaneous remission" made massive changes in their diet after being diagnosed with cancer.
Here is another interesting quote:
While it is true that many people go into spontaneous remission by
dramatically changing their diet and attitude, imagine what would happen
if newly diagnosed cancer patients were told: For example, changing to a vegan diet would not necessarily cure cancer, but going on a selective vegan diet and eating only the vegetables and fruits known to contain large amounts of cancer killing nutrients, and avoiding foods that feed the cancer, and avoiding foods that interfere with the effectiveness of the cancer-fighting foods, would yield a much higher cure rate than any orthodox treatment, even better than Vitamin C therapy. But alternative medicine can do much better than even this selective vegan protocol.
An Orthodox Cancer Treatment QuizNow let's test your knowledge of orthodox medicine. First, we need to define a term: Definition: total life The length of time between the diagnosis of cancer and the death of the cancer patient, whether it is death by cancer, death by cancer treatment or death by any other cause. This is also called "survival time." Question #1: Chemotherapy and radiation put people into "remission." Putting people into remission proves that the "total life" (see above definition) of a person is significantly increased by using chemotherapy and radiation. True or false? Question #2: If a cancer patient lives 5 years after diagnosis, orthodox medicine considers that they are "cured" of cancer. Is this concept mathematically equivalent to the concept of "total life?" Question #3: The FDA would never approve a chemotherapy drug unless it was scientifically proven, beyond any doubt, that the drug significantly extends the "total life" of a cancer patient. True or false? Question #4: Among the thousands of scientific studies on chemotherapy, there is massive scientific evidence that chemotherapy extends the "total life" of cancer patients compared to those who refuse all treatment. True or false? Question #5: Orthodox proponents claim that for some kinds of cancer, "cure rates" have gone up over the past 10 or 20 years. They claim this is just another proof that orthodox treatments are superior to alternative treatments. Do you agree? Now the answers.
Question #1Question #1: Chemotherapy and radiation put people into "remission." Putting people into remission proves that the "total life" (see above definition) of a person is significantly increased by using chemotherapy and radiation. True or false? Answer: People equate the concept of "remission" with the concept of "cure." Technically, "remission" means nothing more than one or more of the symptoms of the cancer are gone (e.g. destroying a tumor may put a cancer patient into "remission"). However, even if a tumor is destroyed, for example, and the person is judged to be in "remission," there still may be many areas of concentrated cancer cells in the body. Thus a person can still have potentially damaging areas of cancer in their body and they can still be considered to be in "remission." There has never been scientific proof that the treatment of symptoms generally relates to a longer "total life." In other words, there has never been scientific proof that the concept of removing "symptoms" and the concept of increasing "total life" are related. Doctors treat the symptoms of cancer in order to put patients into "remission," but their treatments have not been shown to increase "total life." Indeed, the "total life" of cancer patients has barely changed in over 80 years. Furthermore, while many people do go into remission, for some types of cancer more than 90% of the people that go into remission will come out of remission (which is called "regression") and will later die of cancer. "Total Life" has to do with the eventual death of the patient, not the treatment of the symptoms of cancer. Consider this quote:
One of the reasons that cancer is more deadly when it "returns" (the cancer may have never left) is that chemotherapy has damaged the immunity system, leaving the patient far more vulnerable to cancer.
Question #2Question #2: If a cancer patient lives 5 years after diagnosis, orthodox medicine considers that they are "cured" of cancer. Is this concept mathematically equivalent to the concept of "total life?" Answer: It is assumed that the concept of "cure" (meaning patients who survive 5 years after diagnosis), is equivalent to the concept of "total life." Consider two car manufacturing companies, Company B and Company G. Let us define the "total life" of the cars these companies manufacture to be the number of miles the cars drive before the engine dies permanently and has to be replaced. Suppose the "total life" of Company B cars is 100,000 miles and suppose the "total life" of the Company G cars is 300,000 miles. Clearly, Company G makes far superior automobiles. How can the Company B executives make it appear that their car engines are as good as the engines made by Company G? They can lie with statistics. For example, what if Company B did a study of what percent of Company B car engines and what percent of Company G car engines were still running after 30,000 miles? Both companies would look very good and you could not tell them apart. But if the study were based on what percent of Company B car engines and what percent of Company G car engines were still running after 250,000 miles, the truth about the inferiority of Company B car engines would be obvious. If the "benchmark" is carefully chosen to be well below the average, any company will look good. That is exactly how orthodox medicine lies with statistics. A "cure rate" based on a patient living 5 years is like the engine test after 30,000 miles - it is meaningless. The benchmark is way too low. "Cure rates" should be based on "total life" and nothing else. For example, some cancers are very slow growing. The "cure rate" for these cancers is very high, when in fact a 15-year "cure rate" would show just how poor treatments are for some of these types of cancers.
Question #3Question #3: The FDA would never approve a chemotherapy drug unless it was scientifically proven, beyond any doubt, that the drug significantly extends the "total life" of a cancer patient. True or false? Answer: The FDA has never approved a chemotherapy drug that was shown to significantly increase the "total life" of a cancer patient. Chemotherapy drugs are approved based on the treatment of the symptoms of cancer, not on "total life" rates. The effectiveness of chemotherapy drugs is generally based on how well a new drug does treating symptoms, compared only to how other chemotherapy drugs do treating this same symptom!! Furthermore, when a chemotherapy drug is approved for "extending life," the approval is also based on comparing one chemotherapy drug (or combination of drugs) to another chemotherapy drug (or combination of drugs). Never, never, never, has a chemotherapy drug been approved by a study comparing the use of the drug on one group of patients, and comparing this group to a group of patients who refused treatments (in an FDA filing), nor has a study ever been done comparing chemotherapy to one of the top alternative cancer treatments (in an FDA filing).
Now a person might think that it would be unethical to compare a chemotherapy drug to those who refuse treatments. If a person were secretly given a placebo, perhaps that would be unethical. However, there are plenty of people who voluntarily refuse to subject themselves to orthodox treatments who could be used in a study to compare a chemotherapy treatment plan to those who refuse treatment!!
Question #4Question #4: Among the thousands of scientific studies on chemotherapy, there is massive scientific evidence that chemotherapy extends the "total life" of cancer patients compared to those who refuse all treatment. True or false? Answer: The next quote answers this question: Professor Hardin B. Jones, PhD stated:
Prof Jones. (1956 Transactions of the N.Y. Academy of Medical Sciences, vol 6) see also: http://www.sickofdoctors.addr.com/articles/medicalignorance.htm Now consider this quote:
Barry Lynes, The Healing of Cancer - The Cures - the Cover-ups and the Solution Now! - page 9 And this quote:
Three major studies all came to the same conclusion: "orthodox cancer treatments" do not extend the "total life" of cancer patients. In fact, in many cases they shorten the "total life" of cancer patients. Here is a prophetic quote about the future of chemotherapy and radiation:
Question #5Question #5: Orthodox proponents claim that for some kinds of cancer, "cure rates" have gone up over the past 10 or 20 years. They claim this is just another proof that orthodox treatments are superior to alternative treatments. Do you agree? Answer: Yes, some "cure rates" have gone up. This is the most damaging deception of all. Suppose Company B makes some small improvements in their engines and the "total life" of their engines increases from 100,000 miles to 102,000 miles. Because of this, suppose the percentage of their engines that last 30,000 increases from 92% to 93%. Now imagine the CEO of Company B makes the following announcement: "The percentage of our car engines that last 30,000 has increased from 92% to 93%. This proves that Company B cars last longer than Company G cars." Is the CEO right? Of course not, Company G engines still last 300,000 and Company B engines only last 102,000. It is an absurd claim. What the Company B executive has done is compare the "old" Company B cars to the "new" Company B cars. The CEO has not compared the "total life" of the Company B cars to the "total life" of the Company G cars. That is exactly what the FDA does: compare how an "old" chemotherapy drug treats symptoms compared to how a "new" chemotherapy drug treats symptoms. When orthodox medicine says that "cure rates" have gone up, they are comparing their "old" chemotherapy stats to their "new" chemotherapy stats - relative to treating symptoms. They are not comparing the "total life" of orthodox treatments to the "total life" of alternative treatments or even the "total life" of those who refuse treatments. Orthodox medicine is continually "improving" their treatments, all with a loud clarion blast of publicity. Their cure rates are always "going up" and a cure is always "just around the corner." But look at it this way. Company B can improve their engines to last 102,000, and 5 years later they can improve them to 104,000, and 5 years later to 106,000, and so on. In the mean time people who bought cars from Company G have cars that last 300,000, then 5 years later 305,000, then 5 years later 310,000, and so on. So when will Company B catch up to Company G? Never!! But this sophisticated deception goes much deeper. "Cure rates" will go up if the cancer is diagnosed earlier! In other words, if the American Cancer Society convinces women to get mammograms (which are carcinogenic, by the way) more often, their breast cancer will be diagnosed earlier, on average, and the "cure rates" for breast cancer will go up! The cure rate did not go up because of some improvement in chemotherapy or radiation, but because women have carcinogenic mammograms more frequently! There are many ways to manipulate the "cure rates" of orthodox medicine. My free, online eBook goes into this issue in much more detail. In truth, the gap in "total life" between alternative cancer treatments and orthodox cancer treatments is greater than the gap between Company G cars and Company B cars. The Cameron/Pauling study proved that. But there are many alternative cancer treatments that have higher "total life" rates than Vitamin C therapy (based on current Vitamin C technology). In fact I would not put Vitamin C therapy in the "Top 100" alternative cancer treatments. Orthodox medicine, by using sophisticated definitions and deceptive statistics, has convinced the public to believe that orthodox cancer treatments extend the "total life" of patients. But there is no scientific evidence for that belief!! I want to emphasize that these deceptions were not developed by ignorant people who didn't know what they were doing. They are sophisticated, carefully designed statistical deceptions with carefully chosen terminology. A normal person would automatically think only about "total life," but the "total life" numbers are carefully hidden. More will be said about those doing the deception later in this article.
Let Us Count The WaysThere are some things in the above quotes that may have shocked you. The concept that people will die more quickly if they have surgery, chemotherapy and radiation treatments may surprise some people. How is it possible that people who go through treatments can die quicker than people who refuse treatments? In fact, there are many ways that orthodox cancer treatments can kill a cancer patient long before they would have died without treatment of any kind. For example:
Now are you surprised that the three major studies mentioned above all yielded the same conclusion: there is no scientific evidence that orthodox treatments extend the "total life" of most cancer patients? I should note that alternative treatments for cancer have none of the above problems. Alternative cancer treatments generally include dietary items that build a person's immunity system, cause no pain, provide large amounts of natural nutrients, do not spread the cancer, selectively target and kill cancer cells, cause no damage to normal cells, and so on. So how can we judge whether orthodox cancer treatments should be used at all? Everyone knows that surgery, chemotherapy and radiation cause a patient to become very sick and they do massive damage to the immunity system, damage vital organs, etc. How, then, can we justify the use of these three treatments? I would suggest that we "judge" orthodox medicine based on the trade-off between an increase in "total life" versus the damage done to a patient's immune system, etc. plus the loss of "quality of life" of the patient. For example, when we consider both the massive damage to a person's body, plus the massive damage done to a person's quality of life, in order to justify the use of orthodox treatments, we must conclude that the orthodox treatments must extend the "total life" of the patient by a certain percentage. For example, suppose I made the statement: "In order to justify the damage done by orthodox medicine, to both the body and quality of life of a cancer patient, orthodox medicine must increase the "total life" of the patient by 30%." Now some people might not like the 30% number, they may pick 20% or another person might pick 100%. But whatever number you personally pick, note that there is no scientific evidence that in 97% of the cases, orthodox treatments extend the "total life" of patients one minute. In fact, in most cases orthodox medicine shortens the life of cancer patients! Note: The 97% number came from cancer expert Ralph Moss, who could only identify a few very rare types of cancer for which he though orthodox treatments actually extended the "total life" of cancer patients. Thus, how can we "justify" the use of orthodox treatments? We cannot in 97% of the cases. Here are images of an accidental chemotherapy spill on a person's hand.
Keep in mind that this is the stuff they put in a person's blood
veins!
More on Treating the Symptoms of CancerPhilip Binzel, M.D., discussed several key issues relative to the treatment of symptoms. Let us start with another of his quotes:
I want to emphasize a key point in that quote. Orthodox medicine treats symptoms. They would have you believe that the tumor is the cancer. The tumor is not the cancer. The tumor is a symptom of a symptom. A tumor is a symptom of cancer and cancer is frequently a symptom of a weakened immunity system. Is it best to treat the symptom of the symptom or is it best to treat the cause? Let us discuss another metaphor. Suppose there is a farmer that has 100 acres of land. On this farm is a house, a barn, several other buildings, a garden, and so on. Also on this property are a lot of flies and maggots (maggots turn into flies). Suppose this farm has a lot of cows and horses, and thus a lot of manure. Naturally, you would expect far more maggots around the manure than you would around the house. So suppose the farmer decides to remove all of the manure from his property. Will that solve the fly problem? Not at all. It may kill some maggots and even some flies, but most of the flies will survive to breed new generations of maggots and flies. Treating cancer that has already metastasized by simply looking at the size of the tumor is like studying how much manure there is on the farm, and ignoring the flies. Alternative cancer treatments focus on killing the flies (speaking figuratively). Is the manure the problem? No, the flies are the problem. If you safely kill the cancer cells in a tumor, and throughout the rest of the body, the tumor is as harmless as your little finger, even if the tumor is still there. And therein lies one of the major differences between orthodox medicine and alternative medicine. Orthodox medicine focuses on the manure, alternative medicine focuses on the flies and the things that naturally kill the flies. Many alternative cancer treatments do not shrink the size of tumors. Some do shrink the size of tumors, but some do not. So what? If the cancer cells in a tumor are dead, the cancer will not spread and the tumor is harmless. This is what Dr. Binzel was talking about when he stated that orthodox medicine was treating the wrong thing. They are treating the manure, not the flies. Only if the tumor is pressing on another organ, or is blocking some bodily function, is the tumor dangerous. But in that case the tumor's danger has nothing to do with cancer. Another interesting thing in that quote is that nothing that orthodox medicine does treats the spread of the cancer. While it is true that some chemotherapy is designed to kill fast spreading cells in the body, chemotherapy always kills far more normal cells than cancer cells, Many normal cells in the body are fast spreading and are killed by chemotherapy. Chemotherapy would almost always kill the patient long before it would kill all of the cancer cells in a body.
A TimelineLet us draw a timeline in our minds. At the beginning of this timeline is the date a person is diagnosed with cancer. At the end of this timeline is when this person reaches an age of 100 years. Let us put a single mark on this timeline. That mark is where this patient would have died if they had refused all types of medical treatment for their cancer. Let us say they did absolutely nothing to change their diet or treat their cancer with either orthodox or alternative cancer treatments. We will call this mark the "baseline." It is the line where a person who refuses treatment would die. The scientific data is clear - the vast majority of orthodox cancer patients will die to the left of their baseline or on top of their baseline!! Chemotherapy is 80 year old technology. It never worked, it will never work because, as Dr. Binzel stated, it treats the wrong thing. Modern cancer "research" is still not aimed at treating the right thing. Radiation therapy is even older than chemotherapy and surgery is even older than radiation. What about alternative treatments? Alternative treatments do no harm to the patient. Thus, because alternative treatments build the immunity system and selectively kill cancer cells, it is clear that it is impossible for alternative treatments to land a patient to the left of their baseline!! Alternative treatments treat the right thing - the immunity system. Virtually all alternative cancer treatments will cause a person to live to the right of the baseline. The question is this: how do we use alternative treatments to get a person to live well past the baseline? Or to put it another way, how do we get alternative treatments to "cure" cancer, in the sense that the main body of cancer cells is dead and the immunity system is built up to the point it can deal with new cancer cells? There are more than 100 alternative treatments for cancer that will allow more than half of those who use those treatments to "cure" their cancer. Combining treatments will even extend this number. The best of the alternative cancer treatments (which are actually combinations of several alternative treatments) will easily cure over 90% of those who use those treatments instead of orthodox treatments. As mentioned above, Dr. Kelley, who treated 33,000 cancer patients, most of whom had been treated by orthodox medicine first, still had a 93% cure rate. I am totally convinced, based on my extensive research, that if the pharmaceutical industry (i.e. Big Pharma), our government agencies, the American Cancer Society, the American Medical Association, etc., put their money and efforts into natural medicine research, that it would not be long before 99% of all cancer patients would not die of anything related to cancer or cancer treatments, directly or indirectly! People would be more afraid of the flu than cancer! That is the way it should be, but that is not the way it is. Only the person's immunity system or the safe and selective killing of cancer cells will cause a person to live longer than the baseline. Orthodox treatments destroy a person's immunity system and do not selectively kill cancer cells, nor do they safely kill cancer cells. Chemotherapy is both toxic and carcinogenic. Yet, all the time doctors tell their patients something like this: "if you don't have chemotherapy you will live six months." What exactly does that mean? It implies that the patient will live longer if they have chemotherapy, than if they avoid chemotherapy. But there is absolutely no scientific evidence that chemotherapy, except for a few rare types of cancer, ever extends the "total life" of a patient. It is nothing but a scare tactic.
What Orthodox Medicine is HidingSuppose you had a chart where for each type of cancer, diagnosed at each stage, there is listing of every possible type of cancer treatment plan, alternative and orthodox, along with the "total life" that each plan provides the typical patient with this type of cancer, which is diagnosed at each stage. Suppose also that these statistics were compiled by honest people. For example, suppose there was a page for stage 3 / pancreas cancer. On this page was a listing of the 100 best alternative treatments for stage 3 pancreas cancer, along with the expected "total life" of new cancer patients who chose each of these treatment plans. Likewise, suppose on this same page was a listing of the "total life" for each of the dozens of types of orthodox cancer treatments. Plus, suppose there was the "total life" of those who refused all treatments. By looking at this chart, a person with newly diagnosed stage 3 pancreas cancer could easily determine which of the more than one hundred types of cancer treatments had the highest "total life" for stage 3 pancreas cancer. Likewise, suppose a similar chart existed for each type of cancer, diagnosed at each stage. To apply this concept, suppose you were diagnosed with Stage 3 pancreas cancer. Suppose you looked at the chart for "Pancreas cancer / Stage 3" and saw that a patient who took a specific orthodox treatment had a "total life" expectancy of 2.3 years and that patients who were treated with the Cameron/Pauling vitamin C protocol, and did not have any orthodox treatments, had a "total life" of 13.8 years. (Note: the actual "total life" numbers are not known but the "total life" ratio is based on the actual Cameron/Pauling ratio -- their study was a "total life" study.) You would note that the orthodox patients went through months of very painful chemotherapy and radiation, not to mention they suffered much sickness, the destruction of their digestive tract linings, sterility, DNA damage, destruction of their immunity system, etc. The vitamin C patients had none of these side effects, instead they had their immunity system built up and lived 11.5 years longer. Which treatment would you pick based on the chart? Wouldn't you love to see the chart for your situation if you were recently diagnosed with cancer!! I would love to see such charts!! This web site would not be necessary!! Having a chart as I just described, for the best 100 alternative treatments for cancer and for all orthodox treatments, it would be easy to decide which treatment protocol to choose. However, it is the sole purpose of the FDA, NCI (National Cancer Institute), and NIH (National Institutes of Health), all government agencies, to make sure such charts are never created. Why are government agencies and orthodox medicine so opposed to these charts existing? Because if such charts existed no one would ever choose orthodox treatments for cancer. No one - EVER! If such charts existed, the percentage of recently diagnosed cancer patients who died of something unrelated to cancer and unrelated to cancer treatments would quickly climb to over 99% because everyone would take a combination of the best alternative treatments for their type of cancer! That is not an exaggeration! But the government doesn't want you to pick the right treatment, they want you to pick one of the Big Pharma treatments. They don't want you to know the truth. It is not that these people want you to die -- they don't care about that -- they want money. The typical high-level government employee in the FDA, NIH or NCI will be a millionaire within 3 years of quitting the government. Big Pharma will reward them for their "services" while they were with the government. This word spreads back to the current executives and the cycle of loyalty continues. Essentially, the government agencies are nothing but departments of Big Pharma. I will say more about that in a moment.
But let's think about those charts I talked about earlier. Suppose that orthodox treatments were at the top of every one of the charts, and alternative cancer treatment fared very poorly against orthodox treatments. Why would Big Pharma feel the need to bribe public officials and Congressmen? If alternative medicine didn't work, the FDA would shut down all the quacks, and Big Pharma wouldn't care. But it isn't the quacks that Big Pharma is concerned about. It is the people that can cure cancer that Big Pharma bribes the FDA to shut down. Yes, there are "alternative medicine" "quacks" out there, but by shutting down the real quacks, there is a public impression that everyone the FDA shuts down is a quack. Nothing could be further from the truth. Many of the clinics the feds shut down (whether FDA, FTC or whatever) are top-notch alternative clinics that have very high cure rates. There have been scores of excellent alternative practitioners (some of them M.D.s) who had far better cure rates than orthodox medicine, but who were shut down by orthodox medicine, usually by the AMA or FDA. In other words, if orthodox medicine were superior, in terms of "total life," why wouldn't they want those charts to be made?! Ponder that carefully. If orthodox medicine were superior, they would gladly put together the statistical information using "total life" to "prove" their supposed superiority. They wouldn't need layer after layer of deception -- the truth would tell the story. They could save a lot of money in bribes and lobbyists if those charts existed and their products were superior. The NIH would gladly fund hundreds of legitimate studies for alternative medicine if these studies gave them the results they wanted. But they know the truth and know they must suppress the truth and suppress the charts. It is the attempts by alternative medicine to put together enough evidence to gather these statistics that is the primary target of government corruption (yes, the ease and willingness to be bribed is one of the major criteria for the definition of "corruption"). Now consider this. If orthodox cancer therapy were superior to alternative cancer therapies, then alternative cancer practitioners would want their patients to have surgery, as part of the treatment, to kill concentrated masses of cancer cells, and hope this caused the patients to live longer. In other words, alternative doctors would use surgery to hide the ineffectiveness of their treatments. On the other hand, orthodox treatments would not require surgery because orthodox treatments would safely kill cancer cells. But just the opposite is true. Orthodox therapies request surgery to kill concentrated masses of cancer cells and hide their ineffectiveness. On the other hand, I have never heard of one of the respected alternative cancer practitioners recommend surgery to kill cancer cells. It isn't necessary. The only time surgery is recommended is to remove the pain of a tumor pressing against another organ or if there is a blockage or there is some immediate life-threatening problem caused by the tumor. But never is surgery recommended as part of the cancer treatment. Yet, in spite of the fact that orthodox medicine uses surgery, in almost every case, a person would live longer if they refused all orthodox treatments, including surgery. The imaginary charts I am talking about is what the orthodox establishment, which includes the American Medical Association (AMA), FDA, NIH, NCI, American Cancer Society (ACS), quackwatch, etc. don't want you to ever see. All of these organizations are funded and controlled by Big Pharma or they are in collusion with Big Pharma. There have been over 50 books written on this corruption and suppression of truth! Have you ever heard one of these books discussed on television? The orthodox establishment wants you to think that there is "no scientific evidence" that alternative treatments work. In fact, our corrupt government has carefully manufactured the public impression that there is "no scientific evidence." This allows them to justify not creating the charts I have been talking about and it allows them the authority to crush alternative medicine.
How the Cancer Industry Suppresses The TruthIn prior sections I have discussed how the "Cancer Industry" (i.e. Big Pharma, the FDA, NIH, NCI, ACS, AMA, ad nauseum) uses statistics to lie about the lack of effectiveness of orthodox cancer treatments. This section will deal specifically with how they suppress the existence of the charts mentioned in the prior section. However, before understanding how the Cancer Industry does its thing, we must first talk about how the tobacco industry was able to suppress the truth about the relationship between tobacco and cancer, emphysema, etc. for over 65 years. If someone were to do a study on the relationship between tobacco and lung cancer, it would be a very easy thing to do: 1) Determine the percentage of non-smokers who get lung cancer, A class of high school students with a phone book could do a study that found a highly, statistically significant relationship between tobacco products and lung cancer. It is easy to find non-smokers, it is easy to find smokers, thus this type of study would always be an easy thing to do. Of course there are more ways to ascertain the relationship between tobacco and lung cancer than this, but this is the technique I want to emphasize. The first scientific study finding the relationship between tobacco and lung cancer was done in the early 1930s. There had been many informal observations before that first scientific study, but we will start with the early 1930s. As time passed there were more and more scientific studies that related tobacco products and lung cancer. By the 1950s there was simply an overwhelming amount of scientific information that linked tobacco products to lung cancer. So why was it that the flood of lawsuits against tobacco companies had to wait until the 1990s? The tobacco industry did a lot of things to suppress the truth. By far the most effective of these tactics was to use bribery to control the politicians ("bribery" is a term I use to encompass a wide variety of influence tactics) and advertising money to control the media. That was as easy as stealing candy from a baby. As always it worked to perfection. Furthermore, it is easy to bribe executives of organizations. The AMA was easy to control and at no time offered a threat to the tobacco industry. It is the scientists they had to control. But how do you use bribery to control the scientific establishment? Aren't they people of impeccable integrity? It turns out that the answer is 'no'. The "scientific" community was more than eager to take a share of the tobacco industry money pie and do numerous "bogus" scientific studies that did not find a relationship between tobacco and lung cancer. Now the reader might wonder how a "scientist" can do a scientific study and not find a relationship between tobacco and lung cancer. It is easy to do - just design a study that doesn't look for a relationship! The tobacco industry set up numerous "front companies" to do certain tasks, one of which was to fund scientific studies that did not look for a relationship between tobacco and lung cancer. They spent scores of millions of dollars funding these studies.
Now explain something to me. If a group of high school students with a phone book can scientifically prove there is a relationship between tobacco and lung cancer, emphysema, etc., how is it possible that 1,500 research projects, done over a period of 42 years, by researchers at 300 prestigious medical schools, etc. had not been able to find a relationship between tobacco products and lung cancer, emphysema, etc.!!! The answer is that in order to obtain funding, they knew they had better not find a relationship! The rules of getting research money are very simple. You ascertain who you are getting paid by, you ascertain what they what you to publish, then you accept their money and do a study which does not double-cross them. Otherwise, your "research" money dries up real fast. In other words, these "researchers" weren't looking for a relationship between tobacco and lung cancer, they were looking for research money. They weren't looking for useful, scientific truth, they were looking for a source of long-term funding. Here is an interesting quote:
The "researchers" who, year after year, dipped into this money pot had to know what was going on. It seems that a person who picks a career as a doctor or scientist is not much different than a person who picks a career as a politician. They are both looking for the same thing - money. The result of this funding scam was that there were numerous scientific studies that found a relationship between tobacco and lung cancer in scientific journals, which were not funded by the tobacco industry, and there were numerous scientific studies, just mentioned, that did not find a relationship between tobacco and lung cancer, that were funded by the tobacco industry. Because of the "confusion" caused by these different studies there was not a "consensus" among scientists whether tobacco and lung cancer were related. And here is the critical key: without a consensus there was not "scientific evidence" that there was a relationship between tobacco and lung cancer, etc. There must be a consensus for "scientific evidence." At least that is what the media would like you to believe. However, when there is a consensus of opinion by researchers who do not have a conflict of interest (i.e. they aren't funded by the group being investigated), then it should be considered that THERE IS A CONSENSUS and there is SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE!!! The statement in red is absolutely essential to understand. ANY study done under the control of the industry being investigated should be IGNORED by scientific circles. However, the money is too good for them to be ignored by the "scientific" establishment!!! Let me give you a more recent example of why industry sponsored studies should NEVER be published or even be considered. Aspartame, known also as NutraSweet, Equal, etc., was very controversial during the time it was being studied. It caused holes in the brains of rats! Some scientists didn't want it approved for human consumption. Even some scientists in the FDA didn't want it approved. Dr. Ralph G. Walton, M.D., did a study of 166 published studies on the safety of aspartame. The funding of these studies were from the following sources: 1) The pharmaceutical industry funded 74 of the studies Now stop and think real hard - which of the three groups of studies didn't find anything wrong with aspartame? Of the 74 Big Pharma funded studies, not a single one of them found any health problems caused by aspartame. Of the 85 studies that were not funded by Big Pharma or the FDA, 84 of them did find health problems caused by aspartame. Do you see a pattern here? Where do you think the 7 FDA studies landed? 6 of the 7 found
no health problems caused by aspartame. By the way, Walton put the "research" funded by the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI - a noble sounding name) in with the group of industry sponsored studies. It seems that Big Pharma, and others, funded a group similar to the CTR of the tobacco industry. This kind of "science" sounds strangely like what happened with the tobacco industry. Because of this dilution, when I tell someone that aspartame causes brain cancer, birth defects, etc. (actually over 90 different documented health problems), people just look at me and laugh. They will say there is "no scientific evidence" that aspartame causes any health problems. Or they will say you have to drink 800 Diet Cokes every day for it to affect your health. That is exactly what the pharmaceutical industry wants you to think. But the truth is far different than the nonsense. My point is that scientists still seem quite willing to give people who fund their studies whatever they want.
Now let's turn our attention to the Cancer Industry. Let us suppose that someone wanted to test Vitamin C versus chemotherapy in a scientific study. They would simply do the following: 1) With one group of patients, determine the "total life" of people who
were given chemotherapy, but who did not take Vitamin C. It sounds so simple. But there is a problem, our corrupt government can stop anyone who wants to do a study for item #2. In fact they can stop a study on live patients for any type of alternative treatment for cancer. The FDA will not allow anyone to do a scientific study to find the "total life" of people who use Vitamin C therapy and who do not take chemotherapy. Their lie to justify this absurd policy is to "protect the public." The truth is that they don't want the truth to come out about how bad orthodox cancer treatments are relative to alternative treatments. Could such a study be ethically justified? Of course, just find patients who refuse all orthodox treatments and ask them to volunteer for an alternative medicine study. How can building their immunity system and safely and selectively killing their cancer cells do them any harm? But "ethics" is a dirty word in Washington. If high ranking government employees had ethics, it would massively affect their retirement program from Big Pharma. The Linus Pauling / Ewan Cameron study had to be done in Scotland and it was done on terminal patients who had nothing to lose by being in the study. Because of the FDA it is not possible to obtain the statistics necessary to prove that alternative treatments are far better than chemotherapy. That is one of the many reasons the FDA was created. The FDA only "accepts" studies done by pharmaceutical companies and government agencies that are controlled by Big Pharma. Everyone else is ignored. Now let's talk more about the Vitamin C treatment of Cameron and Pauling. What do you think the reaction of orthodox medicine was to this great discovery? Do you think they tried to find ways to use this discovery and even enhance it? Don't be absurd. Their reaction was identical to their reaction to all of the other great discoveries in alternative medicine, they wanted to bury the truth. But one of the participants of the Vitamin C study was a two-time Nobel Prize winner. Linus Pauling had already won a Nobel Prize in chemistry and he won the Nobel Peace Prize. Thus orthodox medicine could not simply bury his studies. They decided to use a tactic to destroy truth that had been refined and perfected by the tobacco industry. That tactic was to create new "studies" that were designed to distract attention from the truth. Orthodox medicine called upon Dr. Moertel of the Mayo Clinic to design three bogus "studies," which did not, by any stretch of the imagination, follow the same treatment protocol, or the same evaluation protocol, as Cameron and Pauling had used (actually, Dr. Moertel was not involved in the third study). Additionally, they probably did not use natural Vitamin C. Now note this carefully, if the Mayo Clinic wanted to know the truth about the Cameron/Pauling studies, they would have taken great care to follow their treatment protocol and evaluation protocol exactly!! To use high school students again, a group of high school students could have followed the Cameron/Pauling protocols perfectly. But the Mayo Clinic took great care to make sure they did not follow the Cameron/Pauling protocols. Since they didn't follow protocols, they didn't come to the same conclusions. So who do you think that orthodox medicine, the government, the media, quackwatch, etc. quotes when the subject of Vitamin C and cancer comes up? Obviously, they quote the Mayo Clinic studies, not the three studies (done in Scotland, Canada and Japan) that did follow the same treatment and evaluation protocols. I have an entire chapter in my free, online eBook on this subject. The Mayo Clinic also did two bogus studies on laetrile, also known as Vitamin B17. Without going into the details, based on what I have read the "laetrile" pills provided by the NIH to the Mayo Clinic for the studies contained absolutely no natural laetrile, but they did contain some inorganic cyanide, which is poisonous. My eBook goes into a little more detail about these studies. In short, Congress has given the FDA, NIH, NCI, etc. a blank check and a big club to legally stop any study (that is not totally under the control of orthodox medicine) that compares alternative treatments to chemotherapy. This means item #2 above is impossible to accomplish for any type of alternative treatment, meaning that without item #2, the gathering of item #3 statistics are impossible to accumulate! The charts mentioned above can never be made!! Lest you think that "scientists" cannot be corrupted by the pharmaceutical industry, as they were by the tobacco industry, consider this quote:
But even this quote does not pinpoint how the pharmaceutical industry has achieved total suppression of truth. Think for a moment about the difference between how the tobacco industry suppressed the truth between 1954 and the 1990s, and how the pharmaceutical industry is suppressing the truth today. Try to isolate and pinpoint the huge difference between their tactics before reading on ... With the tobacco industry, the tobacco sponsored studies did not find a relationship between tobacco and lung cancer, and other diseases. On the other hand, non-tobacco industry studies did consistently find a relationship between tobacco and lung cancer, etc. Likewise, the pharmaceutical industry studies on aspartame did not find any health problems with aspartame. On the other hand, the non-pharmaceutical industry studies did find health problems with aspartame. As you might suspect, the pharmaceutical industry studies on orthodox treatments do not find any problems with orthodox cancer treatments (how can you find a problem by comparing your "old" toxic sludge to your "new" toxic sludge). However, and here is the difference, because of the FDA, NCI and AMA there are no scientific studies on alternative cancer treatments!!! They are not legal. They are not allowed. Do you see the difference? Anyone who wants to find the truth about alternative cancer treatments are not allowed to do studies!!!!! The pharmaceutical industry has gone a giant leap beyond what the tobacco industry was able to do. There are NO truthful studies to dilute!!! For example, during the 42 years the tobacco industry was funding their many hundreds of bogus scientific studies, suppose a government agency had the authority to block ANY study that was not funded by the tobacco industry? That is exactly the level of suppression of truth that the pharmaceutical industry has achieved - they have been able to block all cancer studies that are not funded by the pharmaceutical industry or our corrupt government!!! You have now heard a few of the good things about alternative cancer treatments (truth table #3) and a few of the bad things about orthodox cancer treatments (truth table #4). Let's analyze why, throughout your life, you have only heard the items in truth table #1 and truth table #2.
The MediaIf you failed the tests at the beginning of this article, you might wonder why the massive number of hours you have probably watched television and listened to the radio did not better prepare you to ace the tests. Perhaps the next quote will help you understand:
On any given year, Big Pharma pumps billions of dollars into the media companies for advertisements. Also, in any given year, not one penny is spent on advertising the Brandt Grape Cure because you can buy the necessary ingredients in a grocery store or a health food store. Likewise, you can buy necessary products at a grocery store to go on the Budwig diet (using walnuts instead of flaxseed oil) and many other alternative treatments for cancer. In other words, there are many alternative treatments for cancer that will not provide Big Pharma a single penny of revenue, much less profits. This means these same treatments will not provide the media with a single penny of revenue. Guess which treatments the media pushes? In fact the Federal Trade Commission won't allow alternative cancer treatments to be advertised, because all of them are "unproven" (translation: not profitable to Big Pharma). It has been known for over a hundred years that our American media are nothing but whores, who sell their opinions to the highest bidder. The highest bidder, by a colossal margin, is always orthodox medicine. This explains why you have heard thousands of things in the media in truth table #1 and truth table #2, and it explains why you have probably never heard anything in the media in truth table #3 and truth table #4. The media never gives publicity to books or articles that criticize Big Pharma. For example, the media has said nothing about how the pharmaceutical industry has blocked such books as: Corporate Crime in the Pharmaceutical Industry, by Dr. John Braithwaite, The Drug Story, by Morris A. Bealle, House of Rockefeller, also by Morris A. Bealle, and others. Try to buy one of these books on Amazon!! These books are very critical of Big Pharma. And the media says nothing good about alternative medicine. For example, if the media says nothing about a book, it is guaranteed to have a very small amount of sales. Thanks to the media, no one will ever hear about books such as: Cancer, Cause, Cure and Cover-Up, by Ron Gdanski, The Germ That Causes Cancer, by Doug A. Kaufmann, Choose Life or Death - The Reams Biological Theory of Ionization, by Carey A. Reams, and many others. By not mentioning a book, they are essentially destroying any possibility anyone will know about it. On the other hand, with one media blast, millions of people can be deceived in a single half-hour. The channels of deception are wide-open, always waiting to deceive the public, millions at a time. Yet, truth has no voice in the mass media. The end result of all of this is that you do not know the truth about either orthodox treatments for cancer or alternative treatments for cancer! Let me say that again: you do not know the truth about either orthodox treatments for cancer or alternative treatments for cancer. There is a war going on in medicine today, a war between orthodox medicine and alternative medicine. The war is being fought with money and information. The war is to control what you know, and don't know, about cancer treatments. The war is to control whether you know the truth about all of your cancer treatment options. What you hear about orthodox treatments for cancer on television, the radio, the big magazines, etc. is a maze of sophisticated layers of lies and deception. It is like putting make-up on a T-Rex. What I have talked about is only the tip of the iceberg. My point is to emphasize that during your life you have not heard the truth about alternative treatments for cancer, you have only heard what Big Pharma wants you to hear. What you have heard in the media is not based on a love of truth, it is based on a love of money. If you trust the wrong side in this war, it could cost you your life or the life of your spouse or the life of some other person close to you! It is a war that leaves people dead who don't do their homework and thus end up trusting the wrong people. Now let us talk about the massive group of corporations that pulls the strings of their many puppets, all for the sake of profit.
The Pharmaceutical IndustryWhile the pharmaceutical industry does provide many life-saving and quality of life drugs, their lust for money has taken them into areas they have no business being in. There are many health areas where natural substances are far superior to mutated, synthetic molecules. Mother Nature is a far better chemist than all of the pharmaceutical chemists combined -- and will be for the next ten thousand years! But because pharmaceutical companies cannot patent natural substances, they cannot make much of a profit from natural substances, even if they sold them (which some pharmaceutical companies do). Thus, to make the huge profits needed to appease their stockholders, they revert to pushing the most profitable synthetic molecules they can pass off as useful. In other words, they make decisions of what products to sell based solely on how profitable they are. They also fund much of the massive effort to suppress the truth about natural molecules. But the stockholders and executives of Big Pharma are not the only ones who profit from the massive pharmaceutical money pie. Pharmacies are more than happy to sell chemotherapy drugs. Doctors are more than happy to use surgery, chemotherapy and radiation. Hospitals are more than happy to house cancer patients and provide facilities to doctors. T.V. stations are more than happy to share in the pie. And many, many others share in the profits of this industry. But it gets worse. The pharmaceutical industry has its hands in the pockets of Congress. Congress has protected the pharmaceutical industry via their creation and control of the FDA, NIH and NCI. In fact most government agencies were created to protect the profits of some large corporate industry which had power in Washington. Corporations do not have police powers. So the way they get these police powers is to use their influence among corrupt politicians in Washington to create a government agency to, by proxy, exercise the police powers for the benefit of the corporations. Congress is so concerned about protecting the profits of Big Pharma,, that in November, 2003 Congress handed a "corporate welfare" check to Big Pharma for scores of billions of dollars:
Since when does Big Pharma need "extra assistance." The bill, by the way, forbids the government from negotiating lower drug prices. How often did you hear this fact emphasized in the media before the bill was passed? Congress has a long history of being far more interested in the health of big business than in the health of the American people. Rep. Billy Tauzin, the Louisiana congressman who largely wrote the $540 billion prescription-drug bill for Big Pharma resigned from congress to accept a $2 million-a-year job in the drug industry. Big Pharma not only makes billions of dollars in profits from chemotherapy drugs every year, which do nothing but treat the symptoms of cancer, they also make hundreds of millions of dollars in profits every year for making drugs to treat the symptoms of chemotherapy and radiation! Lest you think Congress is a group of strong-minded people who are deeply concerned about what is best for you, consider this: aspartame (i.e. NutraSweet, Equal, etc.) is known to cause brain damage to unborn children (i.e. a fetus). The damage is manifest as autism, ADD, mental retardation, etc. (see my article for pregnant women on this web site for more information). Now consider this quote:
Did you hear about that bill in the media? As an example of Big Pharma controlled Big Government, Hydrazine Sulphate was being successfully used against cachexia. The NCI said they would "test" the product. They intentionally did not follow protocol and effectively murdered all of the patients in the study. By doing this they could say there was "no scientific evidence" the treatment worked and they were able to suppress this treatment for over 10 years.
Many books have been written that document the persecution of alternative cancer doctors who cured too many of their patients with inexpensive natural products. Of course, most people have never heard of these books because the media does not give them the free publicity they give their favored books.
The American Medical AssociationThe AMA is nothing more than a labor union for doctors. Their job, like all labor unions, is to maximize the profits of their members. But the AMA is a labor union with power because it controls who can "practice medicine." In other words, the many experts in alternative cancer treatments cannot "practice medicine" unless they are first trained and brainwashed in the use of pharmaceutical medicine. However, that is not the end of it. Not even an M.D. can "practice medicine" if he or she does not use "approved" procedures which are adequately profitable to Big Pharma and the other members of the AMA. The relationship between Big Pharma and the AMA is a quid pro quo, roughly translated: "you scratch my back, I'll scratch your back." The AMA makes sure its members prescribe toxic substances to increase the profits of Big Pharma. Likewise, the AMA makes sure its members treat the symptoms of disease (instead of the causes of disease) to insure the patient is not made well too quickly and the profits of Big Pharma are not hindered by the treatment of the causes of disease. On the other hand, Big Pharma never forgets that the AMA has power equal to the FDA. Big Pharma would never come up with drugs that would seriously jeopardize the profits of the hospitals and doctors. That is why every year more and more people die of cancer, in spite of the billions of dollars in cancer research. What exactly are the AMA and Big Pharma looking for? They are not looking for cheaper and safer treatments, they are looking for more profitable treatments. Gene therapy, stem cell transplants, bone marrow transplants, ad nauseum, are what they are looking for. They are looking for things that will make doctors and Big Pharma richer, more powerful and more sophisticated in the eyes of the public. They are not looking for an improved Budwig Diet. The story of Dr. Royal Rife typifies the attitude of the AMA labor union and Big Pharma towards alternative medicine:
The reason there is "no scientific evidence" for the Rife Machine is because orthodox medicine destroyed all the evidence and the life's work of this genius. The objective, guiding light and controlling direction of orthodox medicine is profits and earnings per share, not on what is best for their patients, either in terms of "total life" or "quality of life." Until that paradigm changes, there will be never be a significant improvement in the orthodox cancer treatments that reach your doctor's office regardless of what discoveries are made. When a new discovery is made, the only question that is asked is this: "is it profitable enough?" If the answer is 'no' the treatment is buried. Now perhaps you know why medical costs continue to skyrocket through the roof. But it gets worse. This same concept applies to medical theory. The medical establishment, which not only controls which treatments doctors will use, also control what medical "theories" doctors will believe and apply!! They will pick the medical theories that deliver the most profits for Big Pharma and the AMA's doctors. These absurd medical theories then control the research direction and research money. In other words, the lust for profits controls the research money. Perhaps the reader can understand why people like John D. Rockefeller, Sr. were so anxious to set up foundations to control the direction of medical research. Their "generous" contributions had nothing to do with any concern for humanity, they wanted to control medical research. The AMA and medical schools make sure doctors are totally ignorant of the applications of medical theories such as: the body's electrical systems, the importance of pH/alkalinity, the danger of fungi, moulds, etc. in the blood, phytonutrients, glyconutrients, vitamins/antioxidants, electromagnetic treatments, oxygen treatments, chlorophyll, and so on. These are theories that are not profitable enough, yet they lead to far more effective treatments than the highly profitable orthodox "theory" and treatments!! When a spectacular discovery is made, the FDA or AMA shuts the clinic or lab down, the media suppresses both the discovery and the shutting down of the clinic, etc. How is the discovery going to be distributed among the public? It won't be. Big Pharma and the AMA have blocked all channels of communication!! I am absolutely stunned when I review cancer research reports on the internet that are made public. When a new natural nutrient is found that is proven to kill cancer cells or stop the spread of cancer, do they ask whether this nutrient can be used in a natural treatment for cancer? Of course not. The first question that is asked is this: "how can we mutate and synthesize this nutrient, patent it, and make it into a profitable drug?" Ponder that last paragraph carefully because it is the heart and soul of modern medicine. Find a natural substance that cures something, bury this fact, then fabricate, synthesize, and mutate the key natural substance, then patent the mutation, and make huge profits. That is why there is "no scientific evidence" for alternative treatments, no one is looking because they cannot be patented and thus are not profitable enough. As an example, consider this quote:
Wait a minute - why "modify" a natural substance that works perfectly well? Why not research how this natural substance can be used in a natural treatment for cancer? The answer is that it is not profitable enough. When you read articles about alternative cancer treatments on quackwatch, BC Cancer Agency, the American Cancer Society, etc. you constantly see the phrase "no scientific evidence." They claim there is "no scientific evidence" that alternative cancer treatments work. That is a lie. There is enormous scientific evidence (see my free, online eBook for a chapter on that subject). Here is a quote from the modern version of the Hippocratic Oath: "I will follow that method of treatment which according to my ability and judgment, I consider for the benefit of my patient and abstain from whatever is harmful or mischievous." Somehow, investment advisors seem to be the only ones who benefit from modern medicine. Now let's go back and talk about the Budwig cancer diet, which used two Nobel Prize discoveries in its development. It seems that modern medicine, with their billions of dollars of "research" money has not yet found a way to safely and inexpensively use these two Nobel Prize discoveries of the 1930s. But Johanna Budwig, by herself, was able to cure cancer with the two discoveries. Here is another question: "Do you think that the pharmaceutical industry and medical community are willing to forgo many billions of dollars of annual profits by looking for a safe and inexpensive way to use these discoveries?" In fact there have been numerous medical doctors who used nutrition and supplements to treat cancer who had far higher "total life" cure rates on terminal cancer patients than any current orthodox treatment!! But the direction of cancer "research" is not to improve these natural treatments and determine why they work so well, but the direction of research is to test "theories" that lead to more profitable treatments!!!
Other DiseasesBig Pharma and the AMA learned long ago that the path to massive profits is to treat symptoms. By treating symptoms you have not "cured" the patient, you have simply perpetuated the disease in the most profitable way. So it should come as no surprise that the same government and medical corruption that is going on relative to cancer is also going on relative to heart disease, arthritis, asthma, psychological problems, Alzheimer's and many other diseases. As just one example, let us talk about Alzheimer's/dementia. There are many different causes of Alzheimer's and dementia. In fact it is a wide range of different diseases. However, there is one cause of Alzheimer's and dementia that Big Pharma and the AMA would rather you not know about. In fact, it may be the cause of the majority of cases of Alzheimer's and dementia. This cause has been known about for many years: heavy metals in the body. In fact, when Rome was the world's greatest power, it is now known that the lead in their wine glasses, and the lead in their water pipes, caused severe mental illness among Rome's elite. Not only has the major cause of Alzheimer's been known about for decades, there has been a cure for this cause of Alzheimer's since 1952 - it is called EDTA chelation. But EDTA chelation is not profitable enough for orthodox medicine. It is not that EDTA chelation is not expensive, it is expensive. The problem is that it cures the patient too quickly, and it does not treat the symptoms of Alzheimer's. In short, it is not profitable enough for Big Pharma and it is not "sophisticated" enough, meaning it is too simple. Let's first talk about what may be the major the cause of Alzheimer's/dementia:
It turns out that the American Dental Association (ADA) is just as corrupt as the Alzheimer's Association, the AMA, the American Cancer Society, ad nauseum. Let us continue:
Now let's talk about the cure:
|