There are some remedies worse than the disease. ~Publilius Syrus
See quotes: Tamoxifen Pharma hoax
See cancer quotes: Banners Budwig diet Escharotics General Hamer Laetrile Oxygen therapy Ralph Moss Terms Vitamin C Zapper
"You do the standard of care, give chemo and people die, it's OK. If you don't do the standard of care and people live, that is not OK. It is politically incorrect." ~ Dr Rashid Buttar DO [2015 Oct vid] Episode 1: The True History of Chemotherapy & The Pharmaceutical Monopoly Standard of Care
' I always told my patients to please go to an oncologist. I knew a great number of them. And I would ask them to ask a couple of basic questions. Can you give me studies that show that what therapy you're recommending will improve my quality of life? They can't do it. Will you show me studies that if I take this, chemotherapy, radiation, whatever they're offering, can you show me a study that I will live longer than if I do nothing? They're aren't any. They can't provide it. If they can't provide documentation that your quality of life is going to get better or that you're going to live longer than doing nothing, why are you going to stay? Many of the cancer patients I saw were bankrupt. Their insurance would pay 80 percent, and they go I'm covered, not realizing that the first chemotherapy treatment was going to be $30,000. And their 20 percent added up pretty quick, because there were 10 more chemotherapy on the horizon'. Dr. Michael D. Farley
'I've met one oncologist in my life who wouldn't be classed as a sociopath....they are willing to give chemicals to a person, knowing they wont help the person... knowing that it causes harm, collecting the money for it, and moving on to the next patient, and that by definition would make them sociopathic. No conscience, no remorse, yet giving them drugs they themselves would never take....I know there are exceptions but I've only ever met one, in 30 years...she was the only one with a conscience.' --- Dr. Michael D. Farley
My clinical experience is that in America, when people die from cancer, they are NOT actually dying from cancer, but instead, they are dying from the medical TREATMENT itself. They are dying from the chemotherapy, radiation and surgery. AGAIN: They are NOT dying from the cancer—they are being killed by the medical doctors and their medical treatment! ---Richard Shulze, N.D., M.H.
"In the end there is no proof that chemotherapy in the vast majority of cases actually extends life."---Interview of Dr Ralph Moss, Ph.D.
"They came into my house and said we had to go....They had about 12 Police squad cars surrounding my house and the block...After about 2 weeks of being in the hospital....they got the order that they could force me to do chemotherapy....I couldn't leave my room, there was a guard sitting outside of my door, I couldn't use my phone, I couldn't contact my Mom...one morning they came in, and they strapped me to the bed, and they sedated me for surgery...you have to have a port to have chemotherapy which is why I have this scar...I didn't want the Chemo, they came in with an IV and I said no so they had to have the officers, the security guards and the staff come in and they bought in a bed that had straps, they had to tie me down by my ankles, and a woman came in and they put a needle in my neck to knock me out, and the next thing I knew I woke up and I was in the recovery room." ~ Cassandra Callender [2015 Oct vid] Episode 1: The True History of Chemotherapy & The Pharmaceutical Monopoly
"The great success stories of chemotherapy were always in relatively obscure types of cancer. Childhood leukemia constitutes less than two percent of all cancers and many of chemotherapy's other successes were in diseases so rare that many clinicians had never even seen a single case (Burkitt's lymphoma, choriocarcinoma, etc.)"Ralph Moss
Clearly, conventional cancer treatments have an important place in medicine and save lives. But since the 1950s, evidence has steadily accumulated that surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy are far less effective than the public is being led to believe. Investigative journalist Daniel Greenberg, writing in the Columbia Journalism Review in 1975, produced the first widely reported exposť showing that cancer survival rates since the 1950s had not progressed, and that improvements from 1930 to 1950 were mainly a consequence of improved hospital nursing care and support systems. Greenberg found that even the valid improvements were very, very small, and that there had been no significant advancements in treating any of the major forms of cancer. When Healing Becomes a Crime --Kenny Ausubel
“They (The Council) also were very condescending to those individuals who didn't eat properly or exercise. They take immaculate care of their bodies as far as health goes. They are fit and trim and they use natural medicines. The American Medical Association is fashioned to prescribe drugs and perform various treatments that although they may be unsuspecting, tend to weed out the weaker species. The Council views the AMA's 'modern medicine' as barbaric. Their plans are to have mind-enhanced health associates, like some of the USC medical and dental graduates, who provide the new health care for the Elite, after the takeover. Precision surgery with laser technology will make the so-called "modern methods" of surgery obsolete. Miracle medicines and herbs (God's pharmacy) will keep the body healthy. An understanding of the way the electro-molecular energy field around the body operates will allow the healthy body to be kept in perfect alignment creating perpetual perfect health or it can be brought back into alignment easily with the use of high-tech field variation equipment. This will be the modern medicine of the future and upcoming doctors will be trained in these methods in order to further the evolution of the Elite. The Elite plan to enjoy total and complete health due to their technology in electromagnetic fields. They also have antibodies against the diseases they let loose and make sure they are protected. Of course all of these findings came about by research and experiments on unsuspecting groups of people.”—Brice Taylor (Thanks For The Memories p 283)
"What you are about to read will shock you. It is a
story of oncologists lying to parents about the efficacy of their therapy and
using coercive tactics such as threats of court orders to take children and
submit them to treatments that they know are torturous and ineffective.......We
were told, not asked, but told that we had 30 days from Alexander’s surgeries to
start chemo. We were told that chemo would offer Alexander a good chance of
survival. We were told that he would be getting a new chemo protocol
with "state-of-the-art" drugs. And we were warned that if we did not bring
Alexander in for chemotherapy a court order would be forthcoming so that the oncologists
could take him from us and administer these poisons without our approval. We were lied to
and threatened so that oncologists could fill our son with deadly ineffective poisons that
simply shortened his life and made his last days on earth a living hell.
The oncologists did what they were trained to without challenging the death that surrounds their treatments. The FDA took away Alexanders freedom to use a non-toxic and potentially life-saving therapy. The drug companies received their chemotherapy profits. Alexander lost his life. And we have to live with the knowledge that we never gave our son a fighting chance to survive his disease." No Rights for a Child Diagnosed with Cancer------Raphaele & Michael Horwin
"Two to 4% of cancers respond to chemotherapy .The bottom line is for a few kinds of cancer chemo is a life extending procedure---Hodgkin's disease, Acute Lymphocytic Leukemia (ALL), Testicular cancer, and Choriocarcinoma."----Ralph Moss, Ph.D. 1995 Author of Questioning Chemotherapy.
"NCI now actually anticipates further increases, and not decreases, in cancer mortality rates, from 171/100,000 in 1984 to 175/100,000 by the year 2000!"--Samuel Epstein.
"A study of over 10,000 patients shows clearly that chemos supposedly strong track record with Hodgkins disease (lymphoma) is actually a lie. Patients who underwent chemo were 14 times more likely to develop leukemia and 6 times more likely to develop cancers of the bones, joints, and soft tissues than those patients who did not undergo chemotherapy (NCI Journal 87:10)."John Diamond
Children who are successfully treated for Hodgkin's disease are 18 times more likely later to develop secondary malignant tumours. Girls face a 35 per cent chance of developing breast cancer by the time they are 40----which is 75 times greater than the average. The risk of leukemia increased markedly four years after the ending of successful treatment, and reached a plateau after 14 years, but the risk of developing solid tumours remained high and approached 30 per cent at 30 years (New Eng J Med, March 21, 1996)
"Success of most chemotherapy is appalling There is no scientific evidence for its ability to extend in any appreciable way the lives of patients suffering from the most common organic cancer chemotherapy for malignancies too advanced for surgery which accounts for 80% of all cancers is a scientific wasteland."---Dr Ulrich Abel. 1990
The New England Journal of Medicine Reports War on Cancer Is a Failure: Despite $30 billion spent on research and treatments since 1970, cancer remains "undefeated," with a death rate not lower but 6% higher in 1997 than 1970, stated John C. Bailar III, M.D., Ph.D., and Heather L. Gornik, M.H.S., both of the Department of Health Studies at the University of Chicago in Illinois. "The war against cancer is far from over," stated Dr. Bailar. "The effect of new treatments for cancer on mortality has been largely disappointing."
"My studies have proved conclusively that untreated cancer victims live up to four times longer than treated individuals. If one has cancer and opts to do nothing at all, he will live longer and feel better than if he undergoes radiation, chemotherapy or surgery, other than when used in immediate life-threatening situations."---Prof Jones. (1956 Transactions of the N.Y. Academy of Medical Sciences, vol 6. There is a fifty page article by Hardin Jones of National Cancer Institute of Bethesda, Maryland. He surveyed global cancer of all types and compared the untreated and the treated, to conclude that the untreated outlives the treated, both in terms of quality and in terms of quantity. Secondly he said, "Cancer does not cure". Third he said "There is a physiological mechanism which finishes off an individual".) http://www.sickofdoctors.addr.com/articles/medicalignorance.htm
"With some cancers, notably liver, lung, pancreas, bone and advanced breast, our 5 year survival from traditional therapy alone is virtually the same as it was 30 years ago."---P Quillin, Ph.D.
"1.7% increase in terms of success rate a year, its nothing. By the time we get to the 24 century we might have effective treatments, Star Trek will be long gone by that time." Ralph Moss.
" .chemotherapys success record is dismal. It can achieve remissions in about 7% of all human cancers; for an additional 15% of cases, survival can be "prolonged" beyond the point at which death would be expected without treatment. This type of survival is not the same as a cure or even restored quality of life."John Diamond, M.D.
"Keep in mind that the 5 year mark is still used as the official guideline for "cure" by mainstream oncologists. Statistically, the 5 year cure makes chemotherapy look good for certain kinds of cancer, but when you follow cancer patients beyond 5 years, the reality often shifts in a dramatic way."Diamond.
Studies show that women taking tamoxifen after surviving breast cancer then have a high propensity to develop endometrial cancer. The NCI and Zeneca Pharmaceuticals, which makes the drug, aggressively lobbied State of California regulators to keep them from adding tamoxifen to their list of carcinogens. Zeneca is one of the sponsors of Breast Cancer Awareness Month.
"Most cancer patients in this country die of chemotherapy Chemotherapy does not eliminate breast, colon or lung cancers. This fact has been documented for over a decade. Yet doctors still use chemotherapy for these tumours Women with breast cancer are likely to die faster with chemo than without it."Alan Levin, M.D.
According to the Cancer Statistics for 1995, published by the ACS in their small journal (2), the 5-year survival rate has improved from 50%-56% for whites and 39%-40% for blacks from 1974/1976 - 1983/1990. However, the data is taken from FIVE of the states with the lowest death rates AND the smallest populations! NONE of the 10 states with the highest death rates AND comprising 34% of the Total U.S. Cancer Deaths, were included in the data! Also, in prior years, the Composite (Ave.) 5-year survival rate for ALL Cancers Combined was computed and published. This Ave. 5-year survival crept upward to 50%, in the early nineties. It now stands around 51-52%, due primarily to the improvement of 11% survival for Colon and 13% increased survival for Prostate. It gets worse. The ACS boasts of "statistically significant" results when Uterine Ca survival drops from 89%/60%-85%/55% (W/B)?? Also, Pancreas Ca is 3-3 (W) and Laryngeal Ca survival drops from 59%-53% (B) while Cervical Ca drops from 63%-56% (B). Liver Ca improves from 4%-7%. I wonder how many Pancreatic and Hepatic Ca patients cheered these dramatic results? Ovarian Ca = 36%/40% - 42%/38% (W/B) and Breast Ca = 75%/63% - 82%/66% (W/B). In 16 years the Breast Ca rate improved 3-7%, while Uterine Ca decreased 4-5%. Aren't these marvelous results that the Cancer Establishment should boast about??----RD Hodgell, M.D.
"The five year cancer survival statistics of the American Cancer Society are very misleading. They now count things that are not cancer, and, because we are able to diagnose at an earlier stage of the disease, patients falsely appear to live longer. Our whole cancer research in the past 20 years has been a failure. More people over 30 are dying from cancer than ever before More women with mild or benign diseases are being included in statistics and reported as being "cured". When government officials point to survival figures and say they are winning the war against cancer they are using those survival rates improperly."---Dr J. Bailer, New England Journal of Medicine (Dr Bailers answer to questions put by Neal Barnard MD of the Physicians Committee For Responsible Medicine and published in PCRM Update, sept/oct 1990.
"I look upon cancer in the same way that I look upon heart disease, arthritis, high blood pressure, or even obesity, for that matter, in that by dramatically strengthening the body's immune system through diet, nutritional supplements, and exercise, the body can rid itself of the cancer, just as it does in other degenerative diseases. Consequently, I wouldn't have chemotherapy and radiation because I'm not interested in therapies that cripple the immune system, and, in my opinion, virtually ensure failure for the majority of cancer patients."---Dr Julian Whitaker, M.D. http://www.julian-whitaker.com/
"Finding a cure for cancer is absolutely contraindicated by the profits of the cancer industrys chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery cash trough."Dr Diamond, M.D.
"We have a multi-billion dollar industry that is killing people, right and left, just for financial gain. Their idea of research is to see whether two doses of this poison is better than three doses of that poison."Glen Warner, M.D. oncologist.
"If you can shrink the tumour 50% or more for 28 days you have got the FDA's definition of an active drug. That is called a response rate, so you have a response..(but) when you look to see if there is any life prolongation from taking this treatment what you find is all kinds of hocus pocus and song and dance about the disease free survival, and this and that. In the end there is no proof that chemotherapy in the vast majority of cases actually extends life, and this is the GREAT LIE about chemotherapy, that somehow there is a correlation between shrinking a tumour and extending the life of the patient."---Ralph Moss
"The majority of publications equate the effect of chemotherapy with (tumour) response, irrespective of survival. Many oncologists take it for granted that response to therapy prolongs survival, an opinion which is based on a fallacy and which is not supported by clinical studies. To date there is no clear evidence that the treated patients, as a whole, benefit from chemotherapy as to their quality of life."---Abel.1990.
"For the majority of the cancers we examined, the actual improvements (in survival) have been small or have been overestimated by the published rates...It is difficult to find that there has been much progress...(For breast cancer), there is a slight improvement...(which) is considerably less than reported."---General Accounting Office
"As a chemist trained to interpret data, it is incromprehensible to me that physicians can ignore the clear evidence that chemotherapy does much, much more harm than good."---Alan Nixon, Ph.D., Past President, American Chemical Society.
"He said, "I'm giving cancer patients over here at this major cancer clinic drugs that are killing them, and I can't stop it because they say the protocol's what's important." And I say, "But the patient's not doing well." They say, "The protocol's what's important, not the patient." And he said, "You can't believe what goes on in the name of medicine and science in this country." --Gary Null http://www.livelinks.com/sumeria/health/garynu1.html
The Politics of Cancer---Epstein http://www.preventcancer.com/
That in spite of over $20 billion expenditures since the "War against Cancer" was launched by President Nixon in 1971, there has been little if any significant improvement in treatment and survival rates for most common cancers, in spite of contrary misleading hype by the cancer establishment---the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and American Cancer Society (ACS).
That the cancer establishment remains myopically fixated on damage control _diagnosis and treatment _ and basic genetic research, with, not always benign, indifference to cancer prevention. Meanwhile, the incidence of cancer, including nonsmoking cancers, has escalated to epidemic proportions with lifetime cancer risks now approaching 50%.
That the NCI has a long track record of budgetary shell games in efforts to mislead Congress and the public with its claim that it allocates substantial resources to cancer prevention. Over the last year, the NCI has made a series of widely divergent claims, ranging from $480 million to $1 billion, for its prevention budget while realistic estimates are well under $100 million.
That the NCI allocates less than 1% of its budget to research on occupational cancer _ the most avoidable of all cancers _ which accounts for well over 10% of all adult cancer deaths, besides being a major cause of childhood cancer.
That cancer establishment policies, particularly those of the ACS, are strongly influenced by pervasive conflicts of interest with the cancer drug and other industries. As admitted by former NCI director Samuel Broder, the NCI has become "what amounts to a governmental pharmaceutical company."
That the MD Anderson Comprehensive Cancer Center was sued in August, 1998 for making unsubstantiated claims that it cures "well over 50% of people with cancer."
That the NCI, with enthusiastic support from the ACS _ the tail that wags the NCI dog _ has effectively blocked funding for research and clinical trials on promising non-toxic alternative cancer drugs for decades, in favor of highly toxic and largely ineffective patented drugs developed by the multibillion dollar global cancer drug industry. Additionally, the cancer establishment has systematically harassed the proponents of non-toxic alternative cancer drugs.
That, as reported in The Chronicle of Philanthropy, the ACS is "more interested in accumulating wealth than saving lives." Furthermore, it is the only known "charity" that makes contributions to political parties.
That the NCI and ACS have embarked on unethical trials with two hormonal drugs, tamoxifen and Evista, in ill-conceived attempts to prevent breast cancer in healthy women while suppressing evidence that these drugs are known to cause liver and ovarian cancer, respectively, and in spite of the short-term lethal complications of tamoxifen. The establishment also proposes further chemoprevention trials this fall on tamoxifen, and also Evista, in spite of two published long-term European studies on the ineffectiveness of tamoxifen. This represents medical malpractice verging on the criminal.
That the ACS and NCI have failed to provide Congress and regulatory agencies with available scientific information on a wide range of unwitting exposures to avoidable carcinogens in air, water, the workplace, and consumer products _food, cosmetics and toiletries, and household products. As a result, corrective legislative and regulatory action have not been taken.
That the cancer establishment has also failed to provide the public, particularly African American and underprivileged ethnic groups with their disproportionately higher cancer incidence rates, with information on avoidable carcinogenic exposures, thus depriving them of their right-to-know and effectively preventing them from taking action to protect themselves _ a flagrant denial of environmental justice.