Tuesday, March 08, 2011

A World Without Cancer! (Part 1)

World Without Cancer - The Story of Vitamin B17
G. Edward Griffin marshals the evidence that cancer is a deficiency disease-like scurvy or pellagra-aggravated by the lack of an essential food compound in modern man's diet. That substance is vitamin B17. In its purified form developed for cancer therapy, it is known as Laetrile. This story is not approved by orthodox medicine. The FDA, the AMA, and The American Cancer Society have labeled it fraud and quackery. Yet the evidence is clear that here, at last, is the final answer to the cancer riddle. Why has orthodox medicine waged war against this non-drug approach? The author contends that the answer is to be found, not in science, but in politics-and is based upon the hidden economic and power agenda of those who dominate the medical establishment. With billions of dollars spent each year on research, with other billions taken in on the sale of cancer-related drugs, and with fund-raising at an all-time high, there are now more people making a living from cancer than dying from it. If the solution should be found in a simple vitamin, this gigantic industry could be wiped out overnight. The result is that the politics of cancer therapy is more complicated than the science. WORLD WITHOUT CANCER blazes the trail into unexplored territory and reveals how science has been subverted to protect entrenched commercial interests. It delivers the kind of impact that could topple an empire; and perhaps it will.
"A clear and revolutionary insight into both the science and politics of cancer therapy." Dean Burk, Ph.D. Former Head of Cytochemistry. National Cancer institute
"Mr. Griffin has lifted the veil of mystery from Laetrile." Dr. Ernst T. Krebs, Jr. Discoverer of Vitamin B17
"A milestone of careful research and penetrating analysis." John A. Richardson, M.D. Albany, California
"For the first time since I became a nurse 23 years ago, I do not fear cancer!" Mrs. R.E. Bruce, R.N. San Diego, California
G. Edward Griffin is a writer and documentary film producer with many titles to his credit. Listed in Who's
Who in America, he is well known for his unique talent for researching difficult topics and presenting them in terms that all can understand. He has dealt with such diversified subjects as the Federal Reserve System, archaeology and ancient earth history, international banking, internal subversion, terrorism, the history of taxation, U.S. foreign policy, the Supreme Court, the United Nations, and the science and politics of cancer.
Some of his better known works include The Creature from Jekyll Island, Moles in High Places, The Discovery of Noah's Ark, The Open Gates of Troy, No Place to Hide, The Capitalist Conspiracy, More Deadly than War, The Grand Design, The Great Prison Break, and The Fearful Master.
Mr. Griffin is a graduate of the University of Michigan where he majored in speech and communications. He is the recipient of the coveted Telly Award for excellence in television production, a Contributing Editor for The New American magazine, the creator of The Reality Zone Audio-Archives, and president of American Media, a publishing and multimedia production company in Southern California.
As the following articles indicate, there is a wide opinion on the cause of cancer and how best to treat it.
The cure for wasted cancer fund donations
by S. D. Wells
Sunday, September 25, 2011
(NaturalNews) Cancer donations should be used to find natural remedies and promote regulations that keep chemicals out of food, drinks and body lotions. Instead, billions are spent on the "search for a cure" to a problem the United States breeds and feeds. Put simply, if there is a problem with weeds growing in the back yard, should one just walk around with clippers, chopping off the tops of them, believing they'll go away?
The Medical Community has it all wrong. Cancer is not a disease, but a mutation of cells that multiply uncontrollably and attack the body, while the fuel for these mutations comes primarily from the consumption of chemicals and food agents that are carcinogenic.
Yet most kind-hearted people donate money to cancer funds that continually search for a cure on the "back end" of the problem. To make things even worse, the majority of your donation pays for administrative expenses, like luxurious travel, huge salaries, bonuses, and unsuccessful marketing.
The two "cancer fighting" giants, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and the American Cancer Society (ACS), have repeatedly failed to inform the public and regulatory agencies about scientific research on cancer causing agents and contaminants in food, cosmetics, and personal care products.
A former NCI Director referred to NCI as, "A governmental pharmaceutical company." Legislation against
known carcinogens is almost nonexistent in the United States. Is that because there is no national healthcare?
Then there are mammograms, a highly controversial topic. The American Cancer Society insists on spending nearly every dollar it receives in donations on damage control, while the rest covers pensions, executive benefits, and political contributions that support the politicians who back cancer drugs.
In the early 1990's, both NCI and ACS supported the pharmaceutical giant AstraZeneca and their chemo-prevention drug Tamoxifen, which was supposed to reduce breast cancer risks by 30%, but "side effects" of the toxic medication lead to blood clots and uterine cancer. What good is preventing one kind of cancer if another is induced?
Arimidex, basically the new Tamoxifen, has side effects that include developing osteoporosis, deep vein thrombosis and womb cancer.
Still want to donate money to the organizations that sell these drugs in order to "help women fight breast cancer?"
There are millions of honest people who have suffered from cancer and survived, and afterwards made a conscious effort to help others, but their efforts to walk for the cure or donate money during these difficult economic times may never reach the end goal.
Other cancer prevention organizations actually spend their resources trying to shut down the "competition" instead of embracing supporters of the same cause. The fundraising giant, Susan G. Komen Foundation, "found a cure" for their competition by putting them out of business for using their coined phrase, for the cure. In fact, the foundation has filed suit against more than one hundred Mom and Pop charity organizations.
Word to the wise -- it's not about who is winning, it's about who is helping others become whole again. Instead of donating money to "administrations," spend time and energy educating yourself and others about natural remedies. A good start might be checking out websites like cancertutor.com and drday.com, or even documentaries such as Food Inc., Food Matters, King Corn, and the latest, Forks over Knives.
What are Your Chances of Getting and Surviving Cancer?
By Dr. James Howenstine, MD.
August 23, 2011
• In 2005, cancer passed heart disease as the leading cause of death in the United States.
• An American life is lost to cancer every 21 seconds.
• Cancer now kills more children between the ages 3 and 14 than any other illness.
• Cancer is responsible for 1 out of every 4 deaths in the U.S.A.
Who Is at Risk of Developing Cancer?
EVERYONE! Statistics show that in the year 1880, when records were first kept, 1 in 35 people developed cancer in their lifetime. That figure is currently 1 in every 2 men and 1 in every 3 women. Since the occurrence of cancer increases as individuals’ age, most cases affect adults middle-aged or older.
Prostate cancer is the most common major cancer in America, even though it affects only one sex. Lifetime odds of getting it are 1 in 6. Prostate cancer gets a fraction of what is spent on breast cancer research, and virtually nothing is known about what causes it.
Incidence of breast cancer in women has increased from 1 in 20 in 1960 to 1 in 8 today.
Worldwide, 10.9 million people die each year from cancer.
The U.S. spends a conservative 1.4 trillion dollars a year on "healthcare," with another 34 billion spent on complementary and alternative methods - a high percentage of that being spent on cancer; more per capita than any other nation on earth. But the quality of life for the average American stops at age 51. After that, it takes medical intervention to manage their symptoms. Using conventional methods, the war on cancer is being lost; many people die not from the disease itself but from damage caused by the treatments.
In ancient days, leprosy was the plague that struck fear in all hearts. Cancer is the modern day equivalent of that disfiguring condition. Today cancer is the most dreaded of all. Death by cancer is humiliating, debilitating, painful and sometimes agonizingly slow. After your body has been subjected to the arsenal of weapons that modern medicine uses to fight cancer, it may seem that just staying alive isn't worth the effort. Be that as it may, we willingly submit ourselves to the physical destruction of surgery, radiation, and/or chemotherapy just to gain a few more precious days of life. No matter how you perceive life and death, being a cancer patient is no picnic. Every year, 700,000 Americans die of cancer--the equivalent of more than three fully loaded Jumbo Jets crashing every day, this is despite the fact that record sums of money have been spent on cancer research and treatment. Cancer is a symptom of an inefficient immune system, a red flag signifying that the immune defense forces are falling down on the job. But, even the best cancer specialists are still confused about what cancer is and what it isn't.
In 1971 when the U.S. declared war on cancer, scientists still hadn't identified the body’s immune system
defense force, which was already fighting that war, along with many others. All the doctors, scientists, the American Cancer Society, call cancer a disease. Cancer is not contagious, it doesn't have an incubation period, and there are no foreign invaders that have been identified. Cancer is not a disease, you can’t catch It--it's a symptom of a naturally occurring condition in the body that the immune system normally keeps under control. The problems come when the body’s immune system becomes compromised and can no longer maintain this control. As long as they have cancer misclassified, it will continue to remain both their biggest challenge and a major scientific mystery. Scientists, medical doctors, authors, mass media reporters, even cancer patients, think of cancer as a whole group of diseases, because they have cancer in the wrong category. All the research and efforts go into fighting the symptoms, and not the cause, which is a weakened immune system.
Cancer is the scientist's playground. Because cancer kills, scientists have been able to request and receive billions of dollars in grants from the federal government, non-profit health-oriented organizations, major corporations, and private sources.
The New England Journal of Medicine reports that the war on cancer is a failure. "Despite $30 billion spent on research since 1970, cancer remains "undefeated," with a death rate not lower but actually higher than when they started. The effect of new treatments for cancer has been largely disappointing. The failure of chemotherapy to control cancer has become apparent even to the oncology establishment." John C. Bailar III, M.D., Ph.D., Chairman of the Dept; of Epidemiology and Biostatistics at McGill University.
The late H.B. Jones, Professor of Medical Physics, was a leading U. S. cancer statistician. He said in a speech before the American Cancer Society that no study has proved that early intervention improves the chances of survival. On the contrary, his studies proved conclusively that untreated cancer victims live up to four times longer and with better quality of life than treated ones.
The prestigious British medical journal The Lancet wrote, "If one were to believe all the media hype, the triumphal of the medical profession in published research, and the almost weekly miracle breakthroughs trumpeted by the cancer charities, one might be surprised that women are dying at all from breast cancer." Noting that conventional therapies--chemotherapy, radiation and surgery--had been pushed to their limits with dismal results, the editorial called on researchers to "challenge medical dogma and redirect research efforts along more fruitful lines."
TAXOL is the most commonly prescribed medication in the world today for breast cancer, ovarian cancer, and lung cancer.
TAXOL was discovered in the mid 1960’s and yet with all the research being conducted in the following 50 years, it is still the number one seller. In order to make it appear that cancer medications are improving, they just rename the same product from time to time. In addition to the brand name Taxol, it is also known as Paclitaxel or Onxol. In Canada Taxol is sold under the names Abraxane and Apo-Paclitaxel. In Mexico it goes by the names Aclixel, Asotax, Bristaxol, Cryoxet, and Praxel. It’s interesting because as old as Taxol is, and as long as it has been manufactured, it remains to be one of the most costly.
The truth is that TAXOL is completely ineffective in treating any of the three cancers for which it is prescribed, as proven by the fact that more people are dying of these cancers than ever.
However, chemotherapy is made to look increasingly more effective by simply changing the way we determine survival rates. It used to be that anyone going 15 years without dying was considered a survivor. In order to improve the numbers that was lowered to 10 years, now its 5 years. But the big improvements in the number of cancer survivors came when they changed the way you were classified. Let’s say someone is diagnosed with breast cancer and it metastasizes to bone cancer, and perhaps lung cancer, and they die, having three types of cancer raging in their body. To improve the survival rate, and make everyone believe we are winning the war on cancer, they will determine which cancer of the three actually killed the person, in this case say it was the lung cancer, they will then be counted as both as a breast cancer and a bone cancer survivor, as technically they did not die from either of these cancers. The fact is the person was dying from all three of them as the chemotherapy and radiation treatments were failing miserably; the death is just attributed to one of the three and a victory is claimed in the other two types of cancer. As misleading as this is, it is how the numbers are currently being calculated, and as most of you know, the majority of people that succumb to cancer will end up with cancer that has metastasized into one or more other types.
The truth is that the large pharmaceutical companies are making record profits, many billions of dollars every year, and are not going to change direction anytime soon.
We may be losing the war on cancer, but they are winning the war of statistics.
At this point I think we have pretty well covered the first part of this articles title, “what are your chances of getting cancer,” now let’s discuss the second part of the title, “will you survive it.” I’m am going to give you the same advice I give every patient that comes through my door, and if you take it, you will have more than a fighting chance to survive.
First, and most important – TAKE CONTROL. You are the one with cancer, not your physician, and you need to always remember that. When you walk into the oncologists’ office for your first consultation, you are considering if you should hire his services or not. If you do decide to continue with this person always keep in mind that he works for you, he is there to advise you, but the decisions are always made by you. I see too many times where the patient is told what they must do if they want to survive, or even if they want to continue with this particular physician, and they are given no choice or options in the matter. And all too many times if the patient dares to question the oncologist they are treated with indignation and contemp. If this happens to you, I advise you to run from that office.
Second, there are always options. Actually this is truer with cancer than many other conditions or diseases, and because you are in control, you need to do your homework. Go on-line and look at your options, study them, and then take them to your physician for his advice; if they are a good oncologist they will talk them over with you. Don’t let them hurry you into a treatment; you have time, remember it took the cancer a long time to get to the stage where it could even be detected. You have time to consider which direction you feel is best for you; it is one of the most important decisions you will make in your lifetime. It is definitely a high priority decision but don’t get pushed into making it by anyone, this is about you and no one else.
Third, get a second opinion, and maybe a third or even forth opinion. Physicians are people and as such they are not perfect. Just like car mechanics, there are good ones and there are bad ones. And just like car mechanics, no one ever admits to using a bad one. Everyone always have the best, and this is even more true with physicians, everyone will tell you their physician is the absolute fantastic, but the fact is, not all physicians are equal. It is possible that a mistake has been made but without a second opinion you will never discover if that is the case. There are some very good physicians out there but there really are some bad ones, get a second opinion. You will only know what you have if you have something to compare it to. My advice for obtaining a second opinion is to NOT ask your current physician if they could recommend someone. Most physicians are aware that people will want to discuss their case with someone else and they belong to a network of physicians that support one another, don’t fall into this situation, you will just be wasting your money. And now that I have brought up money, let’s move to number four on my list of advice to help you survive.
Fourth, the insurance companies are not on your side. Despite what you see on TV commercials, insurance companies are not there for you, they are not your friend, or your neighbor, and you are not in good hands. Also keep in mind that your physician works very closely with the insurance companies because they pay the bills, and your physician is going to remember that in prescribing a treatment for you. At the end of the day, insurance companies do not want to pay, and all physicians want to get paid, and because of this fact you will be given limited options for your treatment. Most physicians will not prescribe treatments that are not covered by your insurance no matter how effective they are, and at this writing the insurance companies are only covering mainstream treatments that are largely ineffective. This is your life; please do not let the insurance companies dictate to you a form of treatment that will result with you being just another statistic. Remember, sometimes no treatment results in a longer, better life, and I should note the following fact here; the percentage of oncologist who say they would NOT receive chemotherapy if diagnosed with cancer is 75%.
Fifth, investigate on your own the vast amount of natural treatments available. The numbers of all natural, non-toxic cancer treatments are increasing every day, and they are producing amazing results when compared to the real results of the major pharmaceutical companies. I have been personally using a product called the LifeOne Formula for the past 9 years with near 100% results and I am an avid advocate of this product. When I receive a new cancer patient I find myself excited to share the LifeOne information with them, and get them started on their journey to recovery.
The first place I advise them is to click here because they have the most complete information available on LifeOne. When my patients begin the LifeOne treatments they will very quickly feel better, look better, and have a renewed vigor for life. By comparison, what happens to patients that are given chemo injections, they become emancipated, frail, sickly, and their hair falls out. These are not the effects of the cancer; these are the effects of the poison that has been injected into their systems. To see just how toxic these chemo injections really are, follow this link to see the effect that a small spill of chemo had upon a hand, and while looking at the photo imagine what the effect this poison has on the inside of your body.
For a comparison with the LifeOne Formula, TAXOL, the number one chemotherapy ingredient in the world, is derived from a single natural ingredient that comes from the bark of the Pacific Yew tree which is then chemically reproduced in pharmaceutical laboratories and it no longer has anything natural about it. The LifeOne Formula contains more than 8 active natural ingredients obtained from around the world, all of which work synergistically in a liposomal delivery system to produce an unequalled attack against cancer. The complete story and history of the LifeOne Formula can be found here. I encourage you to go to this website and pour over the vast amount of information they have available on this amazing product. The LifeOne Formula was originally conceived, manufactured, and patented as an immune system enhancer, and that is its sole intended use. The body’s immune system is every person’s most important weapon in the war against cancer. Good Luck and please live a long and healthy life.
Dr. Jose Benavente
Surgeon - General Medicine
Occupational Medicine
C.M.E.C. 3095
MPPPS 57335
Gene Therapy Destroys Leukemia in 3 Patients
Published August 11, 2011
Associated Press
Scientists are reporting the first clear success with a new approach for treating leukemia — turning the patients' own blood cells into assassins that hunt and destroy their cancer cells.
They've only done it in three patients so far, but the results were striking: Two appear cancer-free up to a year after treatment, and the third patient is improved but still has some cancer. Scientists are already preparing to try the same gene therapy technique for other kinds of cancer.
"It worked great. We were surprised it worked as well as it did," said Dr. Carl June, a gene therapy expert at the University of Pennsylvania. "We're just a year out now. We need to find out how long these remissions last."
He led the study, published Wednesday by two journals, New England Journal of Medicine and Science Translational Medicine.
It involved three men with very advanced cases of chronic lymphocytic leukemia, or CLL. The only hope for a cure now is bone marrow or stem cell transplants, which don't always work and carry a high risk of death.
Scientists have been working for years to find ways to boost the immune system's ability to fight cancer. Earlier attempts at genetically modifying bloodstream soldiers called T-cells have had limited success; the modified cells didn't reproduce well and quickly disappeared.
June and his colleagues made changes to the technique, using a novel carrier to deliver the new genes into the T-cells and a signaling mechanism telling the cells to kill and multiply.
That resulted in armies of "serial killer" cells that targeted cancer cells, destroyed them, and went on to kill new cancer as it emerged. It was known that T-cells attack viruses that way, but this is the first time it's been done against cancer, June said.
For the experiment, blood was taken from each patient and T-cells removed. After they were altered in a lab, millions of the cells were returned to the patient in three infusions.
The researchers described the experience of one 64-year-old patient in detail. There was no change for two weeks, but then he became ill with chills, nausea and fever. He and the other two patients were hit with a condition that occurs when a large number of cancer cells die at the same time — a sign that the gene therapy is working.
"It was like the worse flu of their life," June said. "But after that, it's over. They're well."
The main complication seems to be that this technique also destroys some other infection-fighting blood cells; so far the patients have been getting monthly treatments for that.
Penn researchers want to test the gene therapy technique in leukemia-related cancers, as well as pancreatic and ovarian cancer, he said. Other institutions are looking at prostate and brain cancer.
Dr. Walter J. Urba of the Providence Cancer Center in Portland, Ore., called the findings "pretty remarkable" but added a note of caution because of the size of the study.
"It's still just three patients. Three's better than one, but it's not 100," said Urba, one of the authors of an editorial on the research that appears in the New England Journal.
What happens long-term is key, he said: "What's it like a year from now, two years from now, for these patients."
But Dr. Kanti Rai, a blood cancer expert at New York's Long Island Jewish Medical Center, could hardly contain his enthusiasm, saying he usually is more reserved in his comments on such reports.
"It's an amazing, amazing kind of achievement," said Rai, who had no role in the research.
None of the three patients wanted to be identified, but one wrote about his illness, and his statement was provided by the university. The man, himself a scientist, called himself "very luck," although he wrote that he didn't feel that way when he was first diagnosed 15 years ago at age 50.
He was successfully treated over the years with chemotherapy until standard drugs no longer worked.
Now, almost a year since he entered the study, "I'm healthy and still in remission. I know this may not be a permanent condition, but I decided to declare victory and assume that I had won."

The Great Cancer Hoax: The Brilliant Cure the FDA Tried Their Best to Shut Down...
Posted By Dr. Mercola
June 11 2011
Burzynski, the Movie is the story of a medical doctor and Ph.D biochemist named Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski who won the largest, and possibly the most convoluted and intriguing legal battle against the Food and Drug Administration in American history.
In the 1970’s, Dr. Burzynski made a remarkable discovery that threatened to change the face of cancer treatment forever. His non-toxic gene-targeted cancer medicine could have helped save millions of lives over the last two decades had his discovery not been criminally suppressed by the US government, as his therapy, called “antineoplastons,” have been shown to effectively help cure some of the most “incurable” forms of terminal cancer.
This documentary takes you through the treacherous 14-year journey Dr. Burzynski and his patients have had to endure in order to finally obtain FDA-approved clinical trials of antineoplastons.
His story is yet another testament that fact can be far stranger than fiction, as the film exposes the powerful, unscrupulous forces that work to maintain the status quo of the medical- and pharmaceutical industry at any cost—including the lives of millions of people.
Dr. Mercola's Comments:
Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski was born in the early 1940's in Poland, and was trained as both a biochemist and a physician. He's spent the last 35 years developing and successfully treating cancer patients suffering with some of the most lethal forms of cancer at his clinic in Houston, Texas.
I recently interviewed Dr. Burzynski about his cancer treatment—a gene-targeted approach using non-toxic peptides and amino acids, known as antineoplastons. Here, I will follow up with a review of his recently released documentary, Burzynski, The Movie.
It's an absolute jaw-dropper...
For anyone who has ever been affected by cancer, either directly or indirectly, the facts presented in this film will hit you like a rude slap in the face.
You will learn that not only did the US Federal government spend 14 years actively suppressing a cancer treatment that had a FAR greater success rate than any other treatment available, they also spent well over $60 million of US taxpayer dollars trying to put the inventor of the treatment in jail in order to steal his patents and either suppress or cash in on his discovery.
This film is an absolute MUST-SEE, as the summary I'm about to present below simply cannot do it justice. It's available for purchase at BurzynkiMovie.com, where you can view the first half-hour for free. The site also contains a large number of video clips, as well as a full transcript of the entire film, along with links to all the documentation presented.
What's so Special about Dr. Burzynski's Treatment?
The story begins back in the early 1970's when Dr. Burzynski discovered that people with cancer lacked a certain peptide, while those who were cancer free had a plentiful supply of it.
This finding eventually led him to create a medical treatment referred to as antineoplastons. The drug contains a mixture of peptides and derivatives of amino acids. These were known to act as molecular switches, but as genome research blossomed and science progressed, Dr. Burzynski discovered they also work as genetic switches, and that is why antineoplastons work so well. They're actually able to turn on cancer suppressing genes, while simultaneously turning oncogenes (cancer genes) off.
As explained in the film:
"Our bodies contain two categories of genes that allow cancer to flourish: oncogenes, and tumor suppressor genes. When someone has cancer, they have a higher level of oncogenes switched on, with a higher level tumor suppressor genes switched off.
The goal is to tell the body to both switch back on the tumor suppressor genes, and turn off as many oncogenes as possible."
While other gene targeting cancer drugs now exist, they're only capable of targeting a small number of specific cancer genes. Antineoplastons, on the other hand, targets a wide spectrum of cancer genes—about 100 of them at once. In a very simplistic way, antineoplastons are to cancer what a broad-spectrum antibiotic is to infectious disease.
Success Rates of Chemo and Radiation versus Antineoplastons
The film features several remarkable case stories of people who were successfully cured of cancer, but it's when the clinical trial data of conventional therapies versus antineoplastons are stacked against each other that the benefits of antineoplastons become really obvious:
Radiation or Chemotherapy                                                 
5 of 54 patients (9 percent) were cancer free at the end of treatment
Toxic side effects
Only Antineoplastons Only
5 of 20 (25 percent) were cancer free at the end of treatment
No toxic side effects
Tackling Childhood Brain Tumors
Dr. Burzynski was so confident in his antineoplastons that he even accepted the most difficult and "hopeless" cases, such as childhood brain tumors. Conventional medicine has little or nothing to offer in these cases, and the side effects can be as horrific as the disease itself, if not more. Furthermore, the best outcome conventional treatment can offer is to slow down the growth of the tumor.
Using antineoplastons, however, Dr. Burzynski has been able to successfully cure many of these otherwise hopeless cases, such as Jessica Ressel.
She was 11 years old when she was diagnosed with brainstem glioma—an incurable brain tumor. After learning that she would die no matter what toxic drugs and radiation treatments she underwent, the family decided to not put her through it. When they found Dr. Burzynski, they literally had nothing to lose...
Twelve months later—after having initially been told she had but a few months to live, and given no chance of survival at all—MRI's confirmed she was cancer-free. Her brain tumor was completely resolved. Today, Jessica is a healthy 24-year old woman, pregnant with her second child.
When comparing FDA-supervised studies of treatments for lethal childhood brainstem gliomas, antineoplastons again comes out as a clear winner:
Chemotherapy Only
1 of 107 patients (0.9 percent) were cancer free at end of treatment
0 of 107 patients (0 percent) survived past five years
Antineoplastons Only
11 of 40 patients (27.5 percent) were cancer free at end of treatment
11 of 40 patients (27.5 percent) survived past five years
Even more interesting, while some of Dr. Burzynski's patients did eventually die after the five-year mark, most who did NOT undergo chemotherapy prior to getting antineoplastons have gone on to live normal, healthy lives—yet another indication that in many cases, the conventional treatments are more lethal than the disease itself.
Side Effects of Chemotherapy Drugs
Here's just a sampling of the side effects of three conventional chemotherapy drugs:
•Doxorubicin (nick-name: Red Death)—leukemia, heart failure, infertility, mouth sores
•Etoposide—leukemia, nerve damage, inability to fight infections
•Cisplatin—kidney damage, hearing damage, nerve damage, infertility
Another chemo drug, Mitotane, which is derived from DDT, is also used for pediatric patients even though no studies have ever been performed to ascertain its safety or effectiveness in children.
Dr. Burzynski's Troubles Begins...
The legal battle Dr. Burzynski found himself embroiled in over his invention is convoluted to say the least. There are many bizarre twists and turns, and I strongly urge you to watch the documentary to fully appreciate what happened.
Dr. Burzynski had tried to get the FDA to review and approve antineoplastons since 1977, to no avail. To make sure he would not get into trouble for using the experimental therapy in his practice, his legal team reviewed federal and Texas state laws, confirming that he was acting within the laws and could use antineoplastons in his own practice "to meet the immediate needs of patients," since he was a licensed physician. Particularly if no other alternatives were available to the patient. He could not engage in interstate commerce, however, so he had to restrict the use of the drug to his home state of Texas.
But word spread, and patients started traveling to his office from out of state.
Suddenly, in 1984, he found out that agents from the Texas board of medical examiners were traveling to patients across the country trying to convince them to file charges against him.
What followed next truly challenges the rational mind.
Texas Board of Medical Examiners Try to Strip Away his Medical License
In 1988, despite not breaking any laws, and having produced more evidence than was required to show that his treatment was effective and that no harm was coming to his patients from it, the Texas medical board charged him with breaking a law that didn't exist, claiming it was grounds for revoking his medical license.
They didn't have a case, but kept the charges going by continuing to file slightly amended complaints, until finally, in 1993, the case went to trial. By then, 60 of Dr. Burzynski's patients had filed a petition for the medical board to stop harassing their doctor—a petition that the board successfully eliminated from the trial by filing a motion to strike it from the record.
Testifying on Dr. Burzynski's behalf, however, was a leading expert from none other than the National Cancer Institute (NCI), Dr. Nicholas Patronas, MD, a board certified radiologist since 1973, and the founder and chief of Neurology at the NCI. Even he recognized the absurdity of the board's case, and put his own career on the line to testify.
The judge ruled in Dr. Burzynski's favor, confirming that no laws had been broken.
You'd think that would be the end of it. But not so in this case. Instead of accepting defeat, the Texas medical board filed charges against Dr. Burzynski with the Texas Supreme Court.
The Method Behind the FDA's Madness
It eventually came to light that the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had pressured the Texas medical board to revoke Dr. Burzynski's medical license—despite the fact that no laws were broken, and his treatment was proven safe and effective.
But WHY?
It's been stated many times that a crime can be solved simply by following the money, and this case is no exception. The FDA and the pharmaceutical industry had realized that if Dr. Burzynski's discovery—which he owned the patent for—received a fair review, chemotherapy and radiation would rapidly dwindle into obscurity, effectively crippling the industry. Not only that, but if antineoplastons were approved, billions of dollars of cancer research funds would get funneled over to one single scientist who had exclusive patent rights...
Dr. Richard Crout, Director of the FDA Bureau of Drugs, once wrote in a 1982 newsletter:
"I never have and never will approve a new drug to an individual, but only to a large pharmaceutical firm with unlimited finances."
It became clear that ever since 1977, when Dr. Burzynski first tried to get antineoplastons approved, the FDA had begun scheming to eliminate the threat he and his discovery posed to the entire cancer industry...
The Harassment Continues Unabated
The FDA, under the direction of Commissioner Dr. David Kessler, called no fewer than FOUR different grand jury investigations into Dr. Burzynski's practice, despite the fact that none of the grand juries ever found him to be at fault, and no indictment ever came from any of the investigations.
But the FDA did not let up.
Finally, in 1995, just days after the final grand jury investigation, which also had found no fault, Dr. Burzynski was inexplicably indicted on charges of fraud, and 75 counts of violating federal law. If found guilty, he now faced 290 years in federal prison, and $18.5 million in fines.
A year later, in a bizarre twist brought about by congressional and public pressure, the FDA agreed to accept all of Dr. Burzynski's patients into a series of 72 FDA-supervised phase 2 clinical trials.
A 1996 article in The Washington Post noted:
"The prosecution marks the first time the FDA has tried to jail a scientist for using a drug on which he is conducting FDA authorized clinical trials."
Federal Government Spent $60 Million Trying to Bury Dr. Burzynski
This second trial cost American tax payers a whopping $60 million just in legal fees alone—that's not counting the cost of continually harassing him (including several raids on his office) and his patients over the preceding 11 years. Dr. Burzynski spent $2.2 million on his own defense, $700,000 of which was raised by Dr. Julian Whitaker through requests for donations in his newsletter Health & Healing.
On March 4, 1997, the judge declared it a mistrial, due to a deadlocked jury. However, after stating the government had not presented sufficient evidence in its case, he ordered that Dr. Burzynski be acquitted of 42 of the 75 counts.
But the FDA wasn't done yet. They took him to court AGAIN!
Third Time's the Charm...
At this point, many were becoming increasingly aware that something very bizarre and unusual was going on. Jurors from the first trial even joined patients in protests outside the court house. One clear-headed juror from the previous trial stated:
"Please don't waste my money abusing the system to make sure that you maintain your power!"
On May 28, 1997, after three hours of deliberation, the jury came back with their final verdict: Not Guilty.
By now you're probably thinking that this victory surely must mark the end of the wrongful harassment of Dr. Burzynski.
But no. It gets worse.
Secret Dealings Hide True Intents
While this ongoing drama unfolded over the course of more than a decade, something even more sinister was taking place behind the scenes, unbeknownst to Dr. Burzynski and his legal counsel.
In 1989, Dr. Burzynski had retained Dr. Dvorit Samid as a research consultant, and she did a lot of work with the antineoplaston ingredients. At the time, Dr. Samid worked at the Uniformed Services Medical School in Baltimore. She later transferred to the National Cancer Institute.
By 1990—while the Texas medical board kept filing one amended complaint after the other against Dr. Burzynski, in an effort to revoke his license—he had decided that the easiest way to keep the government from putting him out of business or in prison, was to partner with a pharmaceutical company. As luck would have it, he'd treated the sister-in-law of the Chairman and CEO of Élan Pharmaceuticals, and Élan eagerly drafted a letter of intent stating they would aggressively pursue the filing of the necessary protocols with the FDA for approval and marketing of antineoplastons.
Dr. Samid began working closely with Élan on the project. But once the financing, licensing agreements and royalties had been negotiated and agreed upon, Élan suddenly changed its tune, stating they had significant doubt as to whether the active substances could be patented, which would render an agreement meaningless.
As it turns out, Élan had instead partnered with the National Cancer Institute (NCI), where Dr. Samid got the position of section chief. They then co-sponsored laboratory research and clinical trials on just one of the antineoplastons' ingredients—an ingredient that Dr. Burzynski had NOT been able to patent due to the fact that it was already known. However, he had also already determined it to be very limited in terms of effectiveness on its own, over a decade ago.
Élan and the NCI spent tens of millions of dollars testing this single ingredient... Not surprisingly, it failed. Dr. Burzynski had already established that the ingredients must be used in combination in order to be effective. After realizing they could not duplicate the effectiveness of Dr. Burzynski's antineoplastons, the NCI finally agreed to conduct his clinical trials under the direction of Dr. Michael Friedman.
Sabotaging Trials—Par the Course for the National Cancer Institute
How do you sabotage a clinical trial?
It's actually easier than you might think. You'll have to watch the film to get all the details, but in summary, the trials were closed prior to completion, and were written off with the statement that "no conclusion can be made about the effectiveness or toxicity of antineoplastons." But it was clear, based on the study data, that seven of the nine patients enrolled received NO antineoplastons whatsoever! The others received dosages that were far lower than recommended.
Adding insult to injury, in 1999, about a year after Dr. Burzynski had been acquitted a third and final time, the NCI published these invalid trials in the medical literature, citing antineoplastons as a complete failure. So sure, Dr. Burzynski was a free man; cleared of all charges and free to practice medicine, but now the National Cancer Institute had effectively undermined the credibility and commercial viability of his medical discovery...
What the film reveals next, truly boggles the mind.
After the National Cancer Institute intentionally violated all protocols of their own antineoplaston trials, and after all state and federal agencies had failed in their 14-year campaign to remove Burzynski from society—after all of the dust settled—a profound truth began to emerge.
Theft and Patent Infringement—All in a Day's Work
In October 1991—while the Texas medical board kept filing amended complaints against him in an effort to revoke his license, due to pressure from the FDA—the National Cancer Institute (NCI) had conducted a site visit to Dr. Burzynski's clinic, and verified that "anti-tumor activity was documented by the use of antineoplastons."
As it turns out, a mere 17 days after this visit, the United States of America as represented by "The Department of Health and Human Services," filed a patent for antineoplastons AS2-1... one of the two antineoplastons Dr. Burzynski had already patented.
The inventor listed?
"Dr. Dvorit Samid," Dr. Burzynski's former research consultant. The patent states:
"The invention described herein may be manufactured, used and licensed by or for the government, for governmental purposes, without the payment to us of any royalties thereon."
Over the next four years, while the witch hunt to put Dr. Burzynski behind bars was in full swing, the US Government filed 10 more patents antineoplastons.
By the summer of 1995, around the time that Burzynski was indicted for fraud and 75 counts of violating federal law, Dr. Michael Friedman—who sabotaged the NCI antineoplastons trials—had left the NCI and become Deputy Commissioner of Operations for the FDA, working directly under FDA Commissioner Dr. David Kessler—the man responsible for dragging Dr. Burzynski in front of no less than four different grand juries a few years earlier.
In November of 1995, a month into Dr. Burzynski's trial, where he faced 290 years in prison, the US Patent office approved the first US Government patent for antineoplastons. Between 1995 and 2000, the US Patent office approved all 11 copycat patents on antineoplastons AS2-1....
Who Pays for Their Crimes?
By now your head is probably spinning, so let's recap.
Dr. Burzynski developed a cancer treatment that surpassed all other treatments on the market, and the FDA, the pharmaceutical industry, and the National Cancer Institute all knew it. They also knew he was the sole owner of the patents for this therapy, and these two facts combined, threatened the entire paradigm of the cancer industry.
The cancer paradigm is based on very expensive machines and toxic drugs. There's an enormous amount of money to be made in this paradigm, and Dr. Burzynski single-handedly threatened to overturn it.
So they tried to copy his invention using a single non-patented ingredient. It failed. The next step was to steal the whole thing right from under him. There was just one problem. They knew they couldn't use the stolen patents as long as Dr. Burzynski walked free and had the ability to defend his rights to them... So they concocted 75 fraudulent charges to tuck him away in jail for the rest of his life.
Fortunately for us, they failed in that too.
Dr. Whitaker sums it up nicely when he says:
"How can the US Patent office be corrupted to the point they issue patents for a medical treatment that's already been patented and issue them to someone who had nothing to do with their discovery or use? And how can the Patent office then assign these fraudulent patents to some of the most powerful institutions in the American government? And, imagine, all of this was done while these same agencies were spending millions of taxpayer dollars trying to put Dr. Burzynski in jail, so he could not fight the criminal theft of his discovery!"
As I said in the beginning, the facts of this case challenge the mind of any sane and rational person, but make no mistake about it: These things did happen, and Dr. Burzynski has all the documentation to back it up.
The US Government did harass and intimidate, and they did try to falsely imprison a brilliant scientist, simply because he'd discovered an effective cancer therapy, while simultaneously engaging in patent infringement.
Now, while this was an enormous personal hardship for Dr. Burzynski, the US Government also, through their enormous greed, in a very direct way prevented millions of cancer patients to receive a non-toxic therapy that could have saved their life. Remember, Dr. Burzynski has been trying to get antineoplastons reviewed and approved since 1977, to no avail. It's absolutely heartbreaking to consider the cost of this criminal behavior in terms of human life, including young children.
The Deadly, But Highly Profitable, Cancer Paradigm
While the stolen patents are filled with useful information about the benefits and efficacy of antineoplastons, one statement in particular sums up the problem with the current cancer paradigm:
"Current approaches to combat cancer rely primarily on the use of chemicals and radiation, which are themselves carcinogenic and may promote recurrences and the development of metastatic disease."
Dr. Burzynski's therapy, as you may recall, is non-toxic, giving patients the option to at least not suffer more grievous harm from the treatment itself, in addition to a significantly greater chance of being cured.
I'm sure that whenever someone donates their hard-earned money or participates in a pink-ribbon walkathon, they believe they're doing a good thing. They believe they're helping fund vital cancer research that will hopefully, some day, find a cure for cancer. Little do they know that much of this money goes toward perpetuating the status quo of cancer treatment, namely highly toxic drugs and expensive machines—the same old paradigm centered around profit.
As of 2010, the National Cancer Institute's annual budget is $5.2 billion. Dr. Burzynski cannot get a single dime of it. All of his research into antineoplastons over the past 35 years has been self-funded.
Think about that for a moment. Not one dime has been funneled toward developing one of the most promising cancer therapies to emerge in the past three decades... Are you still convinced they have your best interest at heart, and are diligently working to "find a cure for cancer"?


Cancer Breakthrough: 50-60% Success Rate, Cures the Incurable
Posted By Dr. Mercola
May 21 2011
Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski and his son, Dr. Gregory Burzynski, employ novel gene-target therapies in the treatment of cancer, which is the leading cause of death in the US.
Born in the early 1940's in Poland, Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski was trained as a biochemist and a physician, and has been developing a treatment called antineoplastons over the past 35 years. He's also the Founder, President and Chairman of the Burzynski Institute, located in both Houston, Texas, and Stafford.
Dr. Mercola's Comments:
Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski is known for developing a gene-specific treatment using a combination of antineoplastons he developed to target specific cancers, conventional cancer drugs, and natural complementary strategies, including customized diets and exercise.
Interestingly for the last few years he has also been doing a test which sequences all his cancer patients genes so he knows how to customize the program for their genetics.
Proving this Therapy Works
Twelve phase 2 clinical trials have been successfully completed under the supervision of the FDA, and they are now conducting three phase 3 clinical trials. Six additional phase 3 trials are also being planned.
“Currently, our efforts are directed to treat patients with malignant brain tumors especially children and also patients who have advanced colon cancer which could spread to the liver. This is in the area of clinical trials.
As far as our medical oncology practice is concerned, we treat all kinds of cancers especially patients who have the disease advanced to the point that they were told that there is nothing that can be done. That’s the typical patient who is coming to us, the patient with very advanced cancer who has tried other types of treatment and who are simply told to go to the hospital because there is nothing else that can be done.”
Interestingly, they’re not receiving any funding for these studies from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) or any other organization.
“We are running this completely from our own resources,” Dr. Burzynski says. “It is very expensive… That’s why it’s so difficult… But that’s what we have to do.
Basically, the FDA permits us to use antineoplastons for patients who are not in clinical trials, but then we have to ask the FDA for such permission. Of course, the good news about it is that one medication from antineoplaston group is already approved as a prescription medication. This one we can use in combination with other medication as we feel is necessary.”
The Coming Paradigm Shift in Cancer Treatment
According to Dr. Burzynski, the entire medical world is facing a major paradigm shift when it comes to the treatment of cancer.
"For approximately a century and a half, the treatment of cancer was based on a pathology diagnosis established under optic microscope," Dr. Burzynski says. "The doctors simply would like to know the name of the cancer... And every patient who had such cancer received the same standard of care and treatment.
Now we know that cancer is caused by a combination of genes. There is not just one type of lung cancer but perhaps hundreds or thousands different types of lung cancer, each one with different genomic structure.
Now, what we are facing is a paradigm shift, from the treatment of cancer type established by pathology diagnosis under optic microscope to the treatment of genes that are causing cancer. It's a completely different approach. That's what we are using now."
His strategy includes studying the patient's entire cancerous genome; analyzing some 24,000 genes in each cancer patient, in order to identify the abnormal genes. Once identified, medications and complementary strategies such as diet and supplements are selected to treat these corrupted genes. (This genetic testing, although new, is fully covered by any insurance carrier, including Medicare.)
"A person's genome consists of about 24,000 genes. But the number of abnormal genes in the different cancers differs. For instance, 100 abnormal genes can average lung cancer. It could be close to 600 genes in a malignant brain tumor like GBM (Glioblastoma Multiforme).
But these abnormal genes "hijack" normal genes, forming a malignant network that is typically composed of close to 3000 genes. Unless you destroy this malignant network, you are not going to win with cancer. That's what we are trying to do."
Using Molecular Analysis to Determine the Best Treatment Course
Once they've determined which genes are involved in the cancer, drugs and supplements are identified to target those genes. Antineoplastons work on approximately 100 cancer-causing genes, but traditional oncology agents (including chemotherapy) are also used, typically in combination with antineoplastons.
Dr. Gregory Burzinski explains:
"For example, when we do this molecular analysis we have a good amount of options. We can use supplements. We can use targeted therapies. We can even use some chemotherapy. It's great when we even have a target such as vitamin D3 that can be used as a cancer therapy… It's not just simply using the first line chemotherapy—you can really expand on this and use the supplements that we have in our armory already, and this can be proven by what is shown on the molecular analysis."
This can be important, as some supplements—although generally accepted as beneficial—can make some cancers worse. Here, genetic analysis is used to customize every aspect of the treatment. This customization also includes your diet, because as Dr. Burzynski says, "diet is after all a combination of chemicals," meaning nutrients.
What are Antineoplastons?
Antineoplastons are peptides and derivatives of amino acids that act as molecular switches. However, as genome research blossomed and science progressed, Dr. Burzynski discovered that antineoplastons also work as genetic switches.
"They turn off the genes that cause cancer," he explains. "This means oncogenes. And they turn on or activate the genes that fight cancer, which are chemo suppressor genes.
Basically, we are using molecular switches that work on approximately 100 genes involved in cancer. Approximately 80 percent of these genes, which we are turning off, are oncogenes but about 20 percent, which we are turning on, are chemo suppressors. Gene p53, for instance, when it's activated it can kill cancer cells.
For some patients whom we treat, that's enough.
If we use medications like antineoplastons… we can get rid of every one of the cancer cells and they will never come back. We have patients who are now surviving over 20 years with incurable cancers and are perfectly free from cancer.
They live normal lives."
Twelve different antineoplastons are currently known, of which five have gone through clinical trials. The antineoplastons were initially obtained from blood. For a time they were then extracted from urine, but they've now been using synthetic antineoplastons since 1980.
Vitamin D for Cancer
According to Dr. Burzynski, there's definitive genetic support for the use of vitamin D in the treatment of cancer.
"Vitamin D has very little efficacy, but if you combine it with the other medications you can have substantial results, especially for patients who have silencing or who have turning off the activity of the gene called TXNIP (Thioredoxin Interacting Protein). This is an important tumor suppressor gene that works together with another tumor suppressor gene called p10 or PTN.
We can determine by running genomic analysis if this particular patient may benefit from vitamin D3. If that's the case, certainly we would like to use it. All of this can be determined logically through genetic analysis."
This supports the conclusion of other experts, who suggest that vitamin D is most effective when used proactively and preventatively. Research has shown that by optimizing your vitamin D levels year-round, you significantly reduce your risk of developing cancer in the first place.
"Absolutely," Dr. Burzynski says. "This is a great idea. In the future, we may be able to determine based on genomic analysis of cells isolated from the blood stream what the exact vitamin D requirement is for each patient.
Of course, now we can go along by determining the concentrations of vitamin D in the blood and this can give you some idea. Certainly, it's a very good preventive agent to be used but also we can use this therapeutically in combination with the other agents when we have proper genomic analysis."
Curcumin: A Potent Cancer Fighter
Another important supplement is curcumin, which effectively addresses inflammation and has potent anti-cancer properties.
Dr. Burzynski agrees on this point as well.
"For instance, it [curcumin] inhibits NF-kappa B gene in the brain… which protects the brain from inflammation. It works on a wide array of the genes. It suppresses oncogenes. It also promotes some chemosuppressor genes.
We use curcumin for a majority of our patients in supplements, but curcumin alone is poorly absorbed. Only about 1/20 part of curcumin is normally absorbed from your GI tract. We avoid that by combining curcumin with another alkaloid called piperine."
Interestingly, there are very few medications in existence that work on the NF-kappa B oncogene—which is also why pharmaceutical companies are currently working on a synthetic version of curcumin, for use in cancer drugs.
This is unfortunate, as whatever they come up with will be vastly inferior, cost far more than natural curcumin extracted from turmeric, and be loaded with side effects, as most synthetic drugs are.
"If done well, it may become another chemotherapy agent," Dr. Burzynski says. "But as you know, many chemotherapy drugs initially were based on materials isolated from plants, and when they were modified they become quite toxic."
Nutritional Typing—21st Century Style
As mentioned earlier, the Burzynski team also uses individualized meal plans in their treatment.
Each patient consults with a qualified nutritional expert, and the diet is customized to the patient based on the genomic analysis. In addition, they also use SNPs analysis, or Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms analysis, which determines how various nutrients and medications are metabolized in your body.
"Nutrition is very important," Dr. Burzynski says. "One of the things, as we are alluding to with curcumin, is to control inflammation. That's one of things you must do before you get cancer, and also when you have cancer.
Keeping your body with the proper nutrients is essential. We don't want to "feed the cancer." Things that promote cancer, we try to eliminate. We try to eliminate a lot of sugar. That for the most part will fuel the cancer growth.
We want to eliminate glutamine. Glutamine is an amino acid. It's great if you want to be a bodybuilder or if you don't have cancer, but if you do have cancer, for the most part, we encourage our patients to stay away from glutamine because that unfortunately is going to be one of the essential ingredients to cancer growth."
… Certainly, the diet depends on the context of the medications we are using for the patient. Certain dietary ingredients are going to support the medications which we prescribe. Some others may neutralize it.
We have to take under consideration which medication we prescribe. And then make sure that the patient is not taking supplements or dietary ingredients that can fight these medications. This is also established for every patient."
Impressive Success Rates
Dr. Burzynski currently has statistics for about 40 different types of cancer, covering close to 2,000 patients. Their oncology practice has an average of 50 to 60 percent success rate for either substantial decrease of the tumor sites or complete remission.
"But you have to understand that these are relatively recent medications. Many of these medications were introduced only about a year ago. For this group of patients, it's too premature to have long term survival data because the medications are brand new.
On the other hand, if you are talking about the treatment with antineoplastons, for every clinical trial we have separate statistics. The best results were obtained in the treatment of astrocytoma. In clinical trials for astrocytoma… 67 percent of patients obtained objective response, which means the tumors disappeared completely, which is called complete response. (More than 50 percent decrease of tumor size is a partial response.)
The rest of the patients had stabilization of the disease. In this particular clinical trial, we did not have any patient who had progressive disease. Zero progressive disease for this particular trial."
To put this into perspective, some of the best combination treatments you will currently find for the treatment of astrocytoma have a success rate of approximately 30-40 percent, and a progressive disease rate of about 40 percent, according to Dr. Burzynski.
Other Complementary Treatment Strategies
Two other components considered to be very important in alternative medicine in the treatment of cancer are exercise and the mind-body-spirit-stress connection.
Dr. Burzynski agrees that exercise is very important, and that your mind is indeed a powerful factor when addressing disease. In their practice, they use neurolinguistic programming to help their patients relax, and to promote a stress-free experience in their office.
"A lot of times people don't have that stress free environment. This helps all their cells get better and with that, their stress is relieved and their blood pressure improves.
… And, as you mentioned exercise is huge. Patients should not be in bed. We need to get them moving. Studies have shown that exercise helps cancer patients across the board."
On Harassment and Ignorance by the Conventional Medicine Community
By now many of you are probably thinking that since Dr. Burzynski is using genetics, the medical community must laud and support their efforts. Unfortunately, that's not necessarily so.
Back in the 1990's, the state of Texas tried to take away his medical license, claiming he was a fraud.
"This was based on complete lack of understanding and scientific ignorance," Dr. Burzynski explains. "Obviously, the people who were persecuting us, most of them did not know what they were doing, but some of them knew very well because they were trying to steal my patents and my invention.
There was a combination of factors. You mentioned State authorities; this was one level of harassment. Another level of harassment was from the Federal government, represented by the FDA. Apparently… it was triggered by a pharmaceutical company, which together with the National Cancer Institute was trying to appropriate our patent. It was very convenient to persecute me and try to put me in prison.
However, they were not successful, we won.
It was extremely difficult to practice under such circumstances, but the clinic was open every day… It was very tough. I remember waking up early in the morning, coming to the clinic at 5 or 6 in the morning, seeing patients then going to court at 8 o'clock, spending the entire day in court until 5 pm, then coming back to the clinic, seeing patients, taking care of medical records well after midnight. This was day after day. It was an extremely difficult situation but we went through it, and we won.
At this moment, we have very good cooperation with FDA. We are working together and hopefully we will have successful phase 3 clinical trials."
Amazingly, this legal fight dragged on for 14 years! It's hard to imagine anyone making it through such an ordeal. Most people don't. As for the cost, Dr. Burzynski describes it as "tremendous." After factoring in the actual legal expenses and the lost revenue, the tally comes to about $3 million.
In addition, the FDA and Federal government allegedly spent about $60 million on the litigation alone—just to appropriate his patents for a pharmaceutical company! The pharmaceutical company in question eventually went bankrupt after Dr. Burzynski won the case. According to Dr. Burzynski, the full story will be detailed in an upcoming documentary.
Final Thoughts
His challenges certainly serve as a sobering illustration of the kind of courage required to really make advances in this area. In essence, anyone with the guts to try will usually have to pay a steep price for stepping on the toes of drug companies and threatening their future bottom line.
Much of the resistance against alternative and complementary cancer strategies such as the protocol developed by Dr. Burzynski really flies in the face of common sense. Conventional medicine purports to be beholden to science-based medicine, yet it resists and denies solid science-based evidence again and again.
Still, pioneers such as Dr. Burzynski and his son keep moving forward; laying the groundwork for the inevitable paradigm shift.
"To sum it up, I think the 21st century is going to be known for personalized medicine and also preventing certain diseases in that sense," Dr. Burzynski says. "I hope with all the tools we have, we'll get really great results."
The Cancer Treatment So Successful - Traditional Doctors SHUT it Down
Posted By Dr. Mercola
April 23 2011
Dr. Nick Gonzalez is a physician focused on alternative cancer treatment using a three-pronged nutritional approach. Located in New York City, he’s had remarkable success treating patients with some of the most lethal forms of cancer that conventional medicine cannot effectively address.

Dr. Mercola's Comments:
Alternative cancer treatments are a kind of "forbidden area" in medicine, but Dr. Gonzalez chose to go that route anyway, and has some remarkable success stories to show for his pioneering work.
He didn't set out to treat cancer at first however, let alone treat patients. His original plan was to be a basic science researcher at Sloan-Kettering; a teaching
hospital for Cornell Medical College. He had a chance meeting with William Kelley, a controversial dentist who was one of the founders of nutritional typing. Dr. Kelley had been practicing alternative- and nutritional approaches for over two decades at the time, led him to begin a student project investigation of Kelley's work, in the summer of 1981.
"I started going through his records and even though I was just a second year medical student, I could see right away there were cases that were extraordinary," he says. "Patients with appropriately diagnosed pancreatic cancer, metastatic breast cancer in the bone, metastatic colorectal cancer… who were alive 5, 10, 15 years later under Kelley's care with a nutritional approach."
This preliminary review led to a formal research study, which Dr. Gonzalez completed while doing his fellowship in cancer, immunology and bone marrow transplantation.
The "Impossible" Recoveries of Dr. Kelley's Cancer Patients
After going through thousands of Kelley's records, Dr. Gonzalez put together a monograph, divided into three sections:
Kelley’s theory
50 cases of appropriately-diagnosed lethal cancer patients still alive five to 15 years after diagnosis, whose long-term survival was attributed to Kelley’s program
Patients Kelley had treated with pancreatic cancer between the years 1974 and 1982
According to Dr. Good, the president of Sloan-Kettering who had become Gonzalez' mentor, if Kelley could produce even one patient with appropriately diagnosed pancreatic cancer who was alive 5-10 years later, it would be remarkable. They ultimately tracked down 22 of Kelley's cases. Ten of them met him once and
didn't do the program after being dissuaded by family members or doctors who thought Kelley was a quack.
The average survival for that group was about 60 days.
A second group of seven patients who did the therapy partially and incompletely (again, dissuaded by well-intentioned but misguided family members or doctors), had an average survival of 300 days.
The third group consisting of five patients, who were appropriately diagnosed with advanced pancreatic cancer and who completed the full program, had an average survival of eight and a half years! In Dr. Gonzalez' words, this was "just unheard of in medicine."
One of those patients included a woman diagnosed by the Mayo Clinic with stage four pancreatic cancer who had been given six months to live. She'd learned about Kelley's program through a local health food store. She completed his treatment and is still alive today, 29 years later.
The Truth about Medical Journals: Why Gonzalez's Book Was Never Published
However, despite—or rather because of—the remarkable success of the treatment, Gonzalez couldn't get his findings published.
"We tried to publish case reports in the medical journals; the whole book, parts of the book, individual case reports—with no success," he says.
This is an important point that many fail to realize.
Those of us who practice natural medicine are frequently criticized for not publishing our findings. My justification for that is that it's not going to be published anyway, and Dr. Gonzalez' anecdotal story confirms this view.
His mentor and supporter, Dr. Good, was one of the most published authors in the scientific literature at that point, with over 2,000 scientific articles to his name. He'd been nominated for the Nobel Prize three times, and yet he was refused because the findings were "too controversial," and flew in the face of conventional medical doctrine.
If the cream of the crop is refused, how does a general primary care physician get an article published?
He doesn't…
"Robert Good was at the top of his profession: President of Sloan-Kettering, father of modern immunology, and did the first bone marrow transplant in history. Yet, he couldn't get it published," Gonzalez says. "He couldn't even get a single case report published.
In fact, I have a letter from one of the editors, dated 1987, who wrote a blistering letter to Good saying "You've been boondoggled by a crazy quack guy. Don't you see this is all a fraud?"
It was just the most extraordinary, irrational letter... [Because] the patients' names were there, the copies of their pertinent medical records were there… Any of them could have called these patients, like Arlene Van Straten who, 29 years later, will talk to anyone… But no one cared. They wouldn't do it; they didn't believe it.
They couldn't believe it.
It was very disturbing to me because I say, "It is what it is." I come out of a very conventional research orientation, and it was astonishing to me—I had assistance; I had the president of Sloane-Kettering who couldn't get this thing published because it disagreed with the philosophy that was being promoted in medicine; that only chemotherapy, radiation, or immunotherapy can successfully
treat cancer, even though the success rate was abysmal.
The idea that medical journals are these objective and unbiased repositories of the truths about science is total nonsense. Most of them are owned by the drug companies. They won't publish anything that disagrees with their philosophy."
By the end of 1987, it was clear that the work would never get published, and since Dr. Good had retired from Sloan-Kettering, they no longer had the power-base to conduct clinical trials.
Dr. Kelley, realizing his work would never be accepted, let alone get published, "went off the deep end," in Dr. Gonzalez' words, and stopped seeing patients altogether.
"When I last spoke to him in the summer of 1987, he accused me of being part of a CIA plot to steal his work, and I knew that I had to move on," Dr. Gonzalez says.
"To this day, of course, I give him credit for his brilliant innovation. It's kind of like Semmelweis, who ended up going crazy during the 19th century after showing doctors should wash their hands before delivering babies and no one accepted that. Semmelweis just went off the deep end, and that's what kind of what happened to Kelley, I say with great sadness."
Starting the Alternative Cancer Treatment Practice
Dr. Gonzalez set up a practice in New York together with his associate, Dr. Linda Isaacs, and started seeing patients using Kelley's three-pronged approach. The results were impressive.
One of his remarkable success stories includes a woman diagnosed with inflammatory breast cancer, which is the most aggressive form. She'd been given a death sentence.
Today, over 23 years later, she's still alive and well, and cancer free.
"Here's a woman that was given six months to a year to live AND developed metastases while getting aggressive multi-agent chemotherapy, yet 23 and a half years later, she's alive and well, enjoying her life and just doing so well.
We could see that Kelley's approach really worked and when I report these cases I'm giving Kelley the credit because he developed this treatment," Dr. Gonzalez says.
Recognition from the National Cancer Institute
In 1993, as part of a legitimate effort to reach out to alternative practitioners, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) invited Dr. Gonzalez to present 25 of his cases in a closed-door, invitation-only session. On the basis of that presentation, the NCI suggested he conduct a pilot study with patients diagnosed with advanced pancreatic cancer, which in conventional medicine is known to be an untreatable, highly lethal form of cancer.
Interestingly, Nestle stepped in to finance this pilot study. It may seem an odd choice, but the business motivation was the same then as it is today—making junk food appear healthier is a good business move, even if it's only in theory.
Supervised directly by Dr. Ernst Wynder, a premier cancer researcher, the study was completed in early 1999 and published in June that year. According to Dr. Gonzalez:
"It showed the best results for the treatment of pancreatic cancer in the history of medicine."
Chemo Therapy vs. the Kelley Treatment
To put his results in perspective, the chemo drug, Gemzar, approved for pancreatic cancer dates back to 1997, and the major study that led to its approval had 126 patients. Of those, 18 percent lived one year. Not a single patient out of the 126 lived beyond 19 months.
Dr. Gonzalez' study had 11 participants, of which:
Five survived for two years
Four survived three years
Two survived five years
Based on these results, the NCI decided to fund a large scale clinical trial, to the tune of $1.4 million, to test his nutritional approach against the best chemo available at the time.
"My friends say "Why did you get involved with something like this? How could you trust the NCI?"
Well, the NCI had been very fair, up to that point, and the then-director, Richard Klausner, in face-to-face meetings with him said he thought I was doing something really interesting and needed to be properly supported," Dr. Gonzalez says.
But that goodwill soon disappeared.
How to Sabotage a Clinical Study 101
About a year after the study was approved, Klausner left the NCI and was replaced by new management with a wholly different attitude.
"[F]rom our first meeting, we knew something has changed significantly," Dr. Gonzalez says, "and all the people that had initially been assigned to the study, who were supportive and believed we were doing something useful, were taken off it. In fact one of them couldn't even talk to me. She said she'd be fired if she talked to me; if she took my phone call.
I was told by another person who had supported me at the NIH that I shouldn't call him at his office; that he was afraid his line was tapped, and I should only call him at home.
That's how insane the politics over this clinical study got. I couldn't believe it! I thought this was just something you'd read about or see on TV, or that some paranoid or crazy person would make up. But here I was living it. Coming out of Robert Good's group, I don't say that to impress people, but my background is so pure and conventional! It was unbelievable to see that the profession I respected and wanted to join could behave like this."
Unfortunately, the study was, in the end, sabotaged.
"Turned out the principal investigator at Columbia, who's supposed to be completely neutral, had helped develop a chemo regimen that was being used against us—a conflict of interest that was never declared," Dr. Gonzalez explains.
"[T]here are specific requirements for entry into a clinical study. Ours is a nutritional program, and when the first protocol version was written, we had a list of specified criteria… They have to be able to eat…Ours is a nutritional program, so patients have to be able to eat. If they can't eat, they can't do the therapy. They have to be able to take care of themselves…
This is a program the patients have to follow at home.
… Initially, the patients could do it and responded to the treatment. Then, there was a sudden change, around 2000-2001, when the Columbia group took total control of the entry of patients in the study. We were excluded from that process, except during the initial months. The thinking was that if we were involved in the admission process, we'd enter the dreaded bias, whereas if conventional doctors were in control, they couldn't possibly be biased.
Of course, the chief investigator helped develop the chemo regimen used in the study. That's virtually the definition of a 'potential bias'!
He started sending us patients that couldn't eat. We had patients that were so sick we would never have accepted them into our private practice. That were so sick, they died before they got the treatment.
Whether it was a trick to the protocol or not, the Columbia team, the NCI, and the NHI insisted that we had an "intent to treat provision into protocol". This means that the minute a patient is accepted into the trial, they're considered treated, even if they never do the therapy. So the chief of the study at Columbia would enter patients that were so sick, several died before they could pursue their treatment. But because of this intent to treat provision into protocol, they were considered treatment failures.
Ultimately, 39 patients were entered for treatment. Maybe at best, being kind and optimistic, maybe five or six actually did it, the great majority were so sick they couldn't do it."
As a result, the chemo treatment appeared to be a clear winner in this head-to-head evaluation of treatments against incurable pancreatic cancer.
In 2006, Dr. Gonzalez and his partner filed a complaint with the Office of the Human Research Protection (OHRP), which is a group responsible for making sure federal-funded clinical trials are run properly. After a two-year investigation, the OHRP determined that 42 out of 62 patients had been admitted inappropriately. Unfortunately, this never made it to the media, and the Columbia team was able to publish the research findings without mentioning the results of the OHRP review.
"So the study was a total boondoggle; a waste of $1.4 million," Dr. Gonzalez says. "Even though I won the grant, all the money went to Columbia. It's all gone. The data, as far as I'm concerned, is worthless, and the NIH and NCI are using it to show that my therapy doesn't work.
So that's how this long journey of 30 years, from when I first met Kelley, has gone.
"I tell people now regarding the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM), I wouldn't send a dog to that group.
They're not there to help you objectively investigate alternative therapies; they're there to undermine them. It gives the illusion that the government's interested in alternative therapies, when in fact that office is being used, as it was in my case, to help undermine promising useful alternative therapies."
Gonzalez's Three-Pronged Approach to Cancer Treatment
Although most of the studies done on this approach were done on pancreatic cancer, Dr. Gonzalez uses it to treat ALL cancers, from brain cancer to leukemia. His treatment, which is based on Kelley's work, consists of three protocols: diet, supplements and enzymes, and detoxification.
The Dietary Protocol:
The cornerstone of the treatment is a personalized diet based on your nutritional- or metabolic type.
Dr. Kelley originally had 10 basic diets and 90 variations that ranged from pure vegetarian and raw food, to heavy-protein meals that included red meat three times a day.
"In terms of diet, Kelley… found that patients diagnosed with the typical solid tumors: tumors of the breast, lungs, stomach, pancreas, liver, colon, uterus, ovaries, and prostate needed a more vegetarian diet," Dr. Gonzalez explains. "But he had all gradations of a vegetarian diet; one that was 80 percent raw, one that was 80 percent cooked. So even on the vegetarian side, there were all different variations.
Some had minimal animal protein, some had fish, some had also red meat.
A patient with immune cancer (leukemia, lymphoma, myeloma, and sarcomas,( which are connective tissue cancers that are related to immune cancers) tended to do best on a high-fat, high meat diet.
… Then there are balanced people that do well with a variety of foods, both plant foods and animal products, but they don't tend to get cancer.
Cancer tends to occur on the extremes, in the extreme vegetarians—those that tend to be too acid—or in the extreme meat eaters, who tend to be too alkaline. Balanced people don't tend to get cancer too much. So we continued the individualized approach, as did Kelley."
Individualized Supplementation and Enzyme Protocol:
The second component is an individualized supplement protocol, designed for your particular metabolism.
"For example, our vegetarian patients need completely different supplements from our meat eaters. The vegetarians do very well with most of the B vitamins, while the meat eaters don't. The vegetarians don't do well with vitamin A, but the meat eaters do. The vegetarians do well with vitamin D; the meat eaters not so well with large doses, and so on," Dr. Gonzalez explains.
"The meat eaters do well with calcium ascorbate as a vitamin C source, while the vegetarians do well with large doses of ascorbic acid. So the supplement protocols are very individualized and very precisely engineered."
Omega-3 fats are also prescribed, but even here Dr. Gonzalez prescribes different types of omega-3's depending on the patient's nutritional type. In his experience, vegetarians, or carbohydrate types, tend to fare better on flaxseed oil, which contains alpha linoleic acid (ALA) – a plant-based omega 3.
"It is thought that the conversion of the plant-based ALA into the fish-oil based eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) is not that efficient," he says, "But we find that our vegetarian patients actually do it very well and don't use the fish oil or animal-based omega-3 fatty acids as effectively."
Chia and hemp seed oils can also be used.
Protein types, on the other hand, appear to need the EPA and the DHA and do better on animal-based omega-3 such as krill oil.
"They don't do well with flaxseed," he says. "Those are the people who can't make the conversion."
In addition to vitamins, minerals and trace elements, he also prescribes large doses of pancreatic enzymes.
"The essence of Kelley's work was based on the work of Dr. Beard, which goes back to the turn of the last century, about 110 years ago. Beard was a professor at the University of Edinburg, an embryologist actually, not a medical researcher, who first proposed that pancreatic proteolytic enzymes are the main defense against cancer in the body and are useful as a cancer treatment," he explains.
When treating cancer, however, he found it's important to take the right ratio of active and inactive enzymes. The inactive precursors are particularly active against cancer. They also have far longer shelf life, and are more stable.
"That would be my advice – get an enzyme that isn't completely activated," Dr. Gonzalez says. "More active isn't better when it comes to pancreatic enzymes, just like more and more D isn't better than getting the right dosage. You want the right proportions of activated and inactive—most of it as an inactive precursor."
His proprietary enzyme formula is manufactured by NutriCology. According to Dr. Gonzalez, pancreatic enzymes are not only useful as treatment for active cancer but are also one of the best preventive measures.
Antioxidants, such as astaxanthin, are also very helpful, both in the prevention and treatment of cancer.
The Detoxification Protocol:
The third component is a detoxification routine. Coffee enemas are used to help your liver and kidneys to mobilize and eliminate dead cancer cells that have been broken down by the pancreatic enzymes.
Coffee enemas, although often scoffed at today, were actually used as part of conventional medicine all the way up to the 1960s, and were included in the Merck Manual, which was a handbook for conventional medical treatments into the 1970s.
"They fell out of favor not because they didn't work, but because the drug industry took over medicine, so things like coffee enemas were kind of laughed at," Dr. Gonzalez says. "So Kelley learned about coffee enemas from conventional literature and incorporated them into his program and found them extremely helpful."
When you drink coffee, it tends to suppress your liver function, but when taken rectally as an enema, the caffeine stimulates nerves in your lower bowels, which causes your liver to release toxins as a reflex. Other detox strategies include colon cleanses and liver flushes developed by Kelley.
It's important to realize, however, that conventional coffee should NOT be used for enemas. The coffee MUST be organic, naturally caffeinated coffee, and were you to do this at home, you'd also want to use non-bleached filters to avoid introducing toxins into your colon.
"[Organic coffee] is loaded with antioxidants," Dr. Gonzalez says. "In fact, there are recent studies showing that coffee loaded with antioxidants can have an anti-cancer effect and that coffee may actually help suppress cancer.
But you have to use organic coffee, it has to have caffeine, and you have to use a coffee maker that doesn't have aluminum, and preferably no plastic."
Dr. Gonzalez also relies on sodium alginate as a detoxifying agent.
"We have a preparation that we put together and it's very effective... It's an algae and it chelates heavy metals and halides. I never use intravenous chelation; we just use sodium alginate."
He recommends taking three capsules three times a day, away from meals, for six weeks to detoxify your body of heavy metals, such as mercury, and halides.
Final Thoughts
This is one of the most fascinating interviews I've ever done, and it is chock full of information—far more than I can summarize here. So please, I urge you to take the time to listen to the interview in its entirety.
In addition to expounding on the subjects mentioned above, Dr. Gonzalez also reviews the benefits of optimizing vitamin D during cancer treatment, and how iodine supplementation can benefit breast cancer—not to mention help protect against thyroid cancer, in light of the current nuclear crisis in Japan.
We discuss the benefits of juicing and chiropractic adjustments, and the importance of regular exercise for cancer patients. We also review the dangers of electromagnetic field (EMF) exposure, in terms of how it may aggravate cancer growth and hinder cancer recovery, and the benefits, along with some surprising precautions, of Earthing or grounding.
For more information about Dr. Gonzalez and his practice, see www.dr-gonzalez.com. He's also working on a series of books, two of which have already been published and received five-star reviews: The Trophoblast and the Origins of Cancer, and One Man Alone: An Investigation of Nutrition, Cancer, and William Donald Kelley , which is the original monograph of Dr. Kelley's work that he couldn't get published 23 years ago.
This written summary is only a small glimpse of the insights that were shared in our interview. If you or anyone you know struggles with cancer I would strongly encourage you to listen to the entire interview
Thankfully Dr. Gonzalez is still on the front lines and actively engaged in helping people by helping coach them with natural alternatives to toxic drugs and radiation. His office is in Manhattan and he can be reached at 212-213-3337.
Effective cancer prevention suggestions the cancer industry ignores
by: Paul Fassa
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
(NaturalNews) The war on cancer is a hoax. This is what two time Nobel Prize winner Dr. Linus Paul said years ago. Notice he didn't say failure. He said hoax. Cancer deaths have greatly accelerated since then and have become the number one disease killer, surpassing strokes and heart disease.
The only war waged by the cancer industry has been against alternative cancer cures that are efficacious, inexpensive, and non-toxic. The cancer industry wants your business so badly they're ignoring or marginalizing most real cancer prevention possibilities.
Here are a few cancer prevention suggestions.
Vitamin D3
Most of us are highly deficient with this quasi vitamin-hormone. Exposing your skin to direct sunlight helps your body manufacture it, and you can supplement D3 as well. Both D3 sources are recommended since most of us have very low blood D3 counts. Despite the rumors, you can't OD on D3. A recent study featured by Mike Adams discovered up to 40,000 IUs per day is safe.
Most knowledgeable health practitioners recommend five to ten thousand IUs per day. It's estimated that adequate Vitamin D3, which is way beyond the official recommended dosage, will cut your cancer risk in half.
Avoid Toxicity
The verdict is in. Cancer is a man made disease. Our surroundings from inside our homes to our air, water,
and food are heavily contaminated and carcinogenic.
It's necessary to throw out all your commercial cleaning agents, detergents, insecticides, and cosmetics and to replace them with natural toxin free items. They are carcinogenic. So is second hand cigarette smoke. Tap water is often chlorinated and fluoridated: both additives are carcinogenic and more. Use water that's been purified through reverse osmosis at least.
Avoid vaccinations. They actually destroy your immunity. Decades ago, the polio vaccine was created using SV 40 (Simian Virus 40). Then a government health official, Dr. Bernice Eddy, publicly warned of a cancer epidemic if the carcinogenic SV 40 wasn't removed. She was fired for that, but further research and the acceleration of cancer victims indicate she was right.
With industry pollution, chemtrails, and now increased radiation dangers, including mammograms and TSA madness, it's impossible to avoid all toxins. We should detox as often as possible, perhaps once a month.
Coffee enemas and gall bladder flushes; colon cleansing enemas; cilantro and chlorella; activated charcoal slurries; and zeolite. Also research the items needed to protect against the latest increased toxin, radiation.
Eliminate processed foods, GMO foods, MSG, aspartame, high fructose corn syrup, bleached flour products, and processed table sugar. These are all part of the toxic Standard American Diet (SAD). If you are heavily into SAD, allow the possibility of some withdrawal symptoms when you leave SAD.
Eliminate well done red meat. If you are a meat eater, switch to meats from humanely treated grass fed livestock, and avoid overcooking. Lots of organic legumes and whole grains could replace much of a meat diet, and organic sprouted grain breads should replace the toxic bleached flour breads offered on store shelves.
Organic veggies and nuts with some fruit are most important. Cruciferous vegetables, such as cauliflower, broccoli, cabbage, and others are proven to help prevent cancer. Raw Brazil nuts are extremely high in selenium, which helps prevent and even fight cancer.
Use only unprocessed sea salt. Get plenty of Omega 3 and consume only healthy fats and oils while avoiding trans-fatty acids.
Maple syrup compounds help fight diabetes, cancer
Jonathan Benson, staff writer
Tuesday, April 05, 2011
(NaturalNews) Put down the corn syrup-laden Aunt Jemima and reach for some 100 percent pure maple syrup. New research recently presented at the 241st annual meeting of the American Chemical Society in Anaheim, Calif., highlights the amazing health benefits of maple syrup, including its ability to help treat diabetes and prevent the onset of cancer.
Navindra Seeram and her colleagues from the University of Rhode Island last year discovered that maple syrup contains 20 unique health-promoting compounds, 13 of which have never before been identified in maple syrup. And according to a release from United Press International, five of the compounds identified have never been previously identified in nature at all.
"I continue to say that nature is the best chemist, and that maple syrup is becoming a champion food when it comes to the number and variety of beneficial compounds found it in," said Seeram in a statement. "It's important to note that in our laboratory research we found that several of these compounds possess antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties, which have been shown to fight cancer, diabetes and bacterial illnesses."
Maple syrup is already known for being rich in vitamins and minerals, but now it has become clear that the natural sweetener is loaded with a host of powerful, disease-fighting antioxidants. And among maple syrup's various health-promoting compounds is a newly-identified one the team named Quebecol, which is a compound uniquely created when Maple tree sap is boiled and turned into syrup.
"Quebecol has a unique chemical structure or skeleton never before identified in nature," Seeram said. "There is beneficial and interesting chemistry going on when the boiling process occurs. I believe the heat forms this unique compound."
In its current work, the team also found that certain antioxidant phenolic compounds in maple syrup inhibit carbohydrate hydrolyzing enzymes associated with the onset of type-2 diabetes. So while maple syrup may typically be considered a sugary threat to diabetes, the new research seems to indicate otherwise.
Seeram's work, which was funded by the Federation of Quebec Maple Syrup Producers, is set to be published in the Journal of Functional Foods.
The Root Cause of Cancer Almost Universally Ignored by Doctors...
Posted By Dr. Mercola
March 30 2011
In 1971 President Nixon and Congress declared war on cancer. So what's happened in the 40 years since? After weeding out the hype and filling in the actual statistics, it turns out, not much.
"These summary statistics show that the war on cancer has not gone well," says the article's author, Reynold Spector. "This is in marked contrast to death rates from stroke and cardiovascular disease (adjusted for the age and size of the population), which have fallen by 74 percent and 64 percent, respectively, from 1950 through 2006; and by 60 percent and 52 percent, respectively, from 1975 through 2006 (Kolata 2009a).
Cancer therapy is clearly decades behind."
The Committee for Skeptical Inquiry January/February 2010
Dr. Mercola's Comments:
One would think that applying all that modern science has to offer over the last 40 years would have brought us far closer to eradicating cancer. Just compare it to other technology areas. Our cell phones now are more powerful computers than the largest supercomputers of the time.
But instead, cancer rates have increased during that span of time, and now surpass heart disease as the number one killer of Americans between the ages of 45 to 74. The odds are now very high that you or someone you know has cancer, is dying or has already died from it.
Why has "the War on Cancer" Failed so Miserably?
Writing for the Skeptical Inquirer, Reynold Spector lists the following six reasons for the failure:
We don't understand the cause/pathogenesis in most cases of cancer; Most treatments (except surgery are nonspecific cell killers and not "smart" Clinical trials and the grant system don't foster innovation;
Screening for useful drugs against cancer cells has not worked; Animal models of cancer are often
inadequate; Unproductive "fads" in research come and go.
However, while these may factor into the equation of failure, I believe this list is yet another example of
exactly what's wrong with the entire system, which is: ignoring the fact that cancer is likely a man-made disease caused primarily by toxic overload.
Just a few months ago, I wrote about a fascinating study into ancient mummies that determined cancer is not a "natural" disease at all, and genetics are not a primary factor. Tumors were extremely rare until recent times, when pollution and poor diet became issues. So why are the medical and science communities, by and large, ignoring these basics?
Getting to the Root of the Problem
I strongly believe the cancer rates are escalating because they are in no way shape or form addressing the underlying cause of most cancers. Instead, most of the research is directed towards expensive drugs that target late stages of the disease and greatly enrich the drug companies but simply do not prevent cancer.
If ever there was an area in which an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure it is cancer. I strongly believe that if you are able to work your way up to the advanced health plan, that you will virtually eliminate the risk of most cancers.
Environmental- and lifestyle factors are increasingly being pinpointed as the primary culprits fueling our cancer epidemic. This includes:
Pesticide- and other chemical exposures Processed and artificial foods
(plus the chemicals in the packaging) Wireless technologies, dirty electricity, and medical diagnostic radiation exposure
Pharmaceutical drugs Obesity, stress, and poor sleeping habits Lack of sunshine exposure and use of sunscreens
This is clearly not an exhaustive list as such a list would be exceedingly long. For more specifics on consumer products implicated as contributors to cancer, please review the Cancer Prevention Coalition's "Dirty Dozen" list.
The pharmaceutical researchers would like you to believe they're doing everything they can to come up with a solution. Yet all we see is research into newer drug therapies. Clearly they're not digging close enough to the root of the problem, because if they did, they'd touch on some of these lifestyle issues just mentioned.
From my perspective, you ignore lifestyle factors at your own peril when it comes to cancer... Because, clearly, drug-based "advances" are not making a dent in this progressively prevalent disease.
On the contrary, cancer drugs are notoriously toxic and come with devastating, including lethal, side effects. Conventional medicine is so desperate to give the illusion of fighting the good fight that many of these drugs are used despite the fact that they're not really doing much to prolong or improve the quality of life of those diagnosed with cancer.
The best-selling (and extremely expensive) cancer drug Avastin, for example, was recently phased out as a treatment for metastatic breast cancer after studies concluded its benefits were outweighed by its dangerous side effects. Treating a disease in large part caused by toxins with toxins seems ignorant at best.
We can do better than that.
REAL Cancer Advancements that Need to Become Mainstream Knowledge
In the last 30 years the global cancer burden has doubled, and it will likely double again between 2000 and 2020, and nearly triple by 2030—unless people begin to take cancer prevention seriously. We CAN turn this trend around, but to do so the medical community must stop overlooking the methods that can actually have a significant impact.
Three cancer advancements in particular merit special mention. These advancements have not yet been accepted by conventional medicine, and they must be.
Number 1: Vitamin D—There's overwhelming evidence pointing to the fact that vitamin D deficiency plays
a crucial role in cancer development. Researchers within this field have estimated that about 30 percent of cancer deaths -- which amounts to 2 million worldwide and 200,000 in the United States -- could be prevented each year simply by optimizing the vitamin D levels in the general population.
On a personal level, you can decrease your risk of cancer by MORE THAN HALF simply by optimizing your vitamin D levels with sun exposure. And if you are being treated for cancer it is likely that higher blood levels—probably around 80-90 ng/ml—would be beneficial.
If the notion that sun exposure actually prevents cancer is still new to you, I highly recommend you watch my one-hour vitamin D lecture to clear up any confusion. It's important to understand that the risk of skin cancer from the sun comes only from excessive exposure.
Meanwhile, countless people around the world have an increased risk of cancer because their vitamin D levels are too low due to utter lack of sun exposure.
The health benefits of optimizing your levels, either by safe sun exposure (ideally), a safe tanning bed, or oral supplementation as a last resort, simply cannot be overstated. In terms of protecting against cancer, vitamin D has been found to offer protection in a number of ways, including:
Regulating genetic expression
Increasing the self-destruction of mutated cells (which, if allowed to replicate, could lead to cancer)
Reducing the spread and reproduction of cancer cells
Causing cells to become differentiated (cancer cells often lack differentiation)
Reducing the growth of new blood vessels from pre-existing ones, which is a step in the transition of dormant tumors turning cancerous
To learn the details on how to use vitamin D therapeutically, please review my previous article, Test Values and Treatment for Vitamin D Deficiency.
Number 2: Optimizing Your Insulin Levels—Normalizing your insulin levels is one of the most powerful
physical actions you can take to lower your risk of cancer. Otto Warburg actually received a Nobel Prize for his research on cancer cell physiology in 1934, which clearly demonstrated cancer cells require more sugar to thrive. Unfortunately, very few oncologists appreciate or apply this knowledge today.
The Cancer Centers of America is one of the few exceptions, where strict dietary measures are included in their cancer treatment program.
High levels of insulin can cause major damage to your body. The most recognized of these is diabetes, but that is far from the only one. As Ron Rosedale, M.D. said in one of my most popular articles, Insulin and Its Metabolic Effects:
"It doesn't matter what disease you are talking about, whether you are talking about a common cold or cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis or cancer, the root is always going to be at the molecular and cellular level, and I will tell you that insulin is going to have its hand in it, if not totally control it."
The good news is that controlling your insulin levels is relatively straightforward. First, limit your intake of processed foods, grains and sugars/fructose as much as possible to prevent your insulin levels from becoming elevated in the first place.
Number 3: Exercise—If you are like most people, when you think of reducing your risk of cancer, exercise doesn't immediately come to mind. However, there is some fairly compelling evidence that exercise can slash your risk of cancer.
One of the primary ways exercise lowers your risk for cancer is by reducing elevated insulin levels, which creates a low sugar environment that discourages the growth and spread of cancer cells. Controlling your insulin levels and optimizing your vitamin D level are two of the most powerful steps you can take to reduce your cancer risk. For example, physically active adults experience about half the incidence of colon cancer as their sedentary counterparts, and women who exercise regularly can reduce their breast cancer risk by 20 to 30 percent compared to those who are inactive.
Additionally, exercise improves the circulation of immune cells in your blood. Your immune system is your first line of defense against everything from minor illnesses like a cold right up to devastating, life-threatening diseases like cancer.
The trick about exercise, though, is understanding how to use it as a precise tool. This ensures you are getting enough to achieve the benefit, not too much to cause injury, and the right variety to balance your entire physical structure and maintain strength and flexibility, and aerobic and anaerobic fitness levels. This is why it is helpful to view exercise like a drug that needs to be carefully prescribed to achieve its maximum benefit.
It's important to include a large variety of techniques in your exercise routine, such as strength training, aerobics, core-building activities, and stretching. Most important of all, however, is to make sure you include high-intensity, burst-type exercise, such as Peak 8. Peak 8 are exercises performed once or twice a week, in which you raise your heart rate up to your anaerobic threshold for 20 to 30 seconds, and then you recover for 90 seconds.
These exercises activate your super-fast twitch muscle fibers, which can increase your body's natural production of human growth hormone. For detailed instructions, please see this previous article.
Winning the War Against Cancer Begins with Your Personal Choices
You can do a lot, right now, to significantly decrease your cancer risk. Even the conservative American Cancer Society states that one-third of cancer deaths are linked to poor diet, physical inactivity, and carrying excess weight. So making the following healthy lifestyle changes can go a very long way toward ending the failure-streak and becoming one less statistic in this war against cancer:
Normalize your vitamin D levels with safe amounts of sun exposure. This works primarily by optimizing your vitamin D level. Ideally, monitor your vitamin D levels throughout the year.
Control your insulin levels by limiting your intake of processed foods and sugars/fructose as much as possible.
Get appropriate amounts of animal-based omega-3 fats.
Get appropriate exercise. One of the primary reasons exercise works is that it drives your insulin levels down. Controlling insulin levels is one of the most powerful ways to reduce your cancer risks.
Eat according to your nutritional type. The potent anti-cancer effects of this principle are very much underappreciated. When we treat cancer patients in our clinic this is one of the most powerful anti-cancer strategies we have.
Have a tool to permanently erase the neurological short-circuiting that can activate cancer genes. Even the
CDC states that 85 percent of disease is caused by emotions. It is likely that this factor may be more important than all the other physical ones listed here, so make sure this is addressed. My particular favorite tool for this purpose, as you may know, is the Emotional Freedom Technique.
Only 25 percent of people eat enough vegetables, so by all means eat as many vegetables as you are comfortable with. Ideally, they should be fresh and organic. Cruciferous vegetables in particular have been identified as having potent anti-cancer properties. Remember that carb nutritional types may need up to 300 percent more vegetables than protein nutritional types.
Maintain an ideal body weight.
Get enough high-quality sleep.
Reduce your exposure to environmental toxins like pesticides, household chemical cleaners, synthetic air fresheners and air pollution.
Reduce your use of cell phones and other wireless technologies, and implement as many safety strategies as possible if/when you cannot avoid their use.
Boil, poach or steam your foods, rather than frying or charbroiling them.
Film details natural cancer cures
Carmen George
Thursday, March 10, 2011
When Ned Wright came down with testicular cancer in 1999, surgery, chemotherapy and radiation all failed to cure him.
After each treatment, the cancer returned. When his doctor offered him another option: a bone marrow transplant followed by a high does of chemotherapy, which offered a 20% survival rate, Wright decided to try something different.
He opted instead for Gerson Therapy, a whole-body approach to healing that uses natural foods and juices.
It worked.
"The diet was tough and time consuming, but I followed it just as the Gerson doctor had prescribed," Wright said. "As you can see by my testimony, it is 2009 and I am alive by God's grace and the Gerson Therapy. I am now a Gerson person, because of a little-known man's passion for healing."
Wright's testimony to the Gerson Institute was similar to many others captured by filmmaker Steve Kroschel, who produced the film "Dying to Have Known," a documentary aimed to unearth the facts and myths behind an alternative, and often discredited, approach to curing cancer. The film was shown at Willow Bridge Books Feb. 26 by Dr. Carl Bosco, who has been a practicing naturopathic chiropractor in Coarsegold for 35 years. Kroschel, who has made movies with Disney, BBC and IMAX for 20 years, traveled around the world gathering testimonies about the treatment.
Bosco is showing the film again at 5:30 p.m. Wednesday, March 16 at the Produce Place in Oakhurst next to the Grocery Discount Center. The documentary includes interviews with various patients that have been cured by Gerson Therapy, along with medical experts and doctors for and against the treatment.
Gerson Therapy uses a whole-body approach to healing that boosts the body's immune system and other defenses to cure cancer, arthritis, heart disease, allergies and many other chronic conditions. The therapy stimulates the metabolism through the addition of the natural thyroid hormone, potassium and other supplements and by avoiding heavy animal fats, excess protein, sodium and other toxins. These changes help the body regenerate, become healthier and prevent future illness.
Gerson discovered the natural cancer cures after experiments with a special "migraine diet" cured one of his patients suffering from tuberculosis. He soon studied and developed many different natural diets, each specialized to cure a different type of cancer.
One of the movie's segments includes interviews with doctors at a medical hospital in Japan that is conducting studies of Gerson Therapy -- a project taken on by one of the doctors after he was cured from cancer using Gerson Therapy.
According to testimonies from doctors there, of more than 500 patients being studied in Japan undergoing
the therapy, more than half are now cured from cancer or recovering.
Dr. T. Colin Campbell of Cornell University, interviewed in the film and credited as the "foremost nutrition specialist in the world," said Dr. Max Gerson, who developed the Gerson Treatment in the 1930s, has been incorrectly labeled as a "quack" by many in the medical community.
Some interviews in the movie centered on the idea that with a multi-billion dollar pharmaceutical industry, natural cures for cancer like Gerson Therapy are often not welcome.
"The scientific definition is so narrow that the only thing that can be tested are drugs," said Howard Strauss, grandson of Max Gerson. "Medicine is an advertisement for drugs rather than research for the truth. Our pollution-damaged bodies are in need of this (Gerson Therapy) now more than ever."
"We need to take the filters off our minds, start thinking out of the box, and have confidence in what you learn on your own," said Bosco, whose spent his life researching nutrition -- a hobby that began when he was sickly as a youth.
Shirley Lay, who attended the film showing at Willow Bridge, said the Gerson Therapy principles work for curing other ailments beside cancer.
Lay said she had been on 10 different prescription drugs for various medical problems, many prescribed simply to treat side affects of a prescribed drug. After chiropractic work from Bosco and changing her diet -- cutting out things like sodas, candy bars and fast food -- she got off all of her medications and didn't have any more pain. Lay has been without all medications for 12 years now.
"Keep it simple," Bosco said. "The No. 1 thing you can do is eat real food. If you do that, you're 90% there. You've got to cut out sodas and keep fast food sources to a bare minimum. Get back to wonderful foods like cabbage and carrots. Simplicity is where it's at, and like in the movie, get plenty of sunshine and exercise."
The Profit Of Not Curing Cancer
Kellene Bishop
March 18, 2009
This is an article which I wrote that was published in Monetary Intelligence Magazine in March 2009. It’s clear that the hype we receive on a great many “studies and statistics” from our government agencies is misleading at best. As someone who has gone through her own cancer scare, this information makes me feel so abandoned by a country I love.
History of Errors
In the December 1959 issue of American Medical Association Journal, an editorial was published that boldly stated there was insufficient evidence “to warrant the assumption” that cigarette smoking was the principal factor in the increase of lung cancer. Who were the medical experts who authored such blatant falsehoods? Dr. Ian MacDonald, a prominent cancer surgeon, and Dr. Henry Garland, an internationally recognized specialist in radiology. These two individuals made national headlines with their claims. In fact, Dr. Garland specifically stated that cigarette smoking was actually beneficial as a tranquilizer. MacDonald even went on to note that smoking was a “harmless pastime”— even up to 24 cigarettes per day without consequence. He even went so far as to suggest “a pack a day keeps the cancer away.”
Fast forward to the mid 1960s and 1970s. Doctors Garland and MacDonald were used by government and health agencies to again submit an “expert” opinion regarding the use of laetrile, aka Vitamin B-17, aka nitrilocides on cancer patients. In spite of countless studies by renowned doctors, clinics, universities and specialists worldwide that showed the contrary, Garland and MacDonald claimed that no direct benefits were viable. Neither Garland nor MacDonald ever tested or used laetrile themselves. They merely compiled a mountain of other fraudulent or derelict research data and presented it as factual. What’s interesting is how these two doctors, and countless other trusted professionals in the medical and research industry, have been used to sacrifice medical integrity and cover up information for the sole purpose of the monetary well-being and profit of the medical industry. Unfortunately, that criminal practice continues today . . . particularly with cancer.
Who’s Hiding What?
Evidence is mounting that the FDA, the American Medical Association and the American Cancer Society are deliberately hindering American citizens from having access to laetrile, a natural substance which has a proven record to prevent, cure and minimize the effects of cancer. Given that there are hundreds of thousands of cancer fatalities each year, it’s no wonder that expert author G. Edward Griffin calls this “an act of genocide” by the FDA and its other cohorts.
Which begs the question: If there was an easily accessible nutrient that could aid the cure and prevention of cancer, why would such entities fight against its release to the general public? Who would want to hide a cure for cancer and what motivation would they have for perpetrating such an act of horror? My answer to such questions usually starts with “Follow the money.” It always comes down to money.
A study conducted by USA Today shows that over 50 percent of all of the cowardly experts which have
been hired to advise the government on the merits of laetrile and any other proposed medicines have heavily-involved financial relationships with the pharmaceutical industry. In other words, their paychecks are affected by their research. If their research were to uncover a non-patentable substance to cure a widespread disease, they would have to pound the pavement for a new job.
In 1971, the FDA reported to an Ad Hoc Committee of Consultants for Review and Evaluation of Laetrile that laetrile could no longer be promoted, sold or even tested in the United States. Why would the FDA treat a natural occurring substance of everyday fruits and vegetables with more alarm and restrictions than it would illegal drugs, poisons and unconventional medicines? Simple: there is no financial or political benefit to endorsing it.
A patent for laetrile is unobtainable since it is a naturally occurring substance. Real money can only be made if you’ve got a medical patent. So, instead of losing millions of dollars in lobbying monies, hundreds of thousands of jobs in research and medicine, our nation would rather force its citizens to flee to foreign shores to access the freedom of choice in treating their cancer without poisons, cutting or burning, and more importantly, by accessing a method that has a higher rate of success than any medical practice put forth now in the U.S. for the treatment of cancer.
In some studies, cancer patients have had an 82 percent improvement rate. There aren’t any other current “anti-cancer” methods that can boast such results, especially without doing harm elsewhere to the body of a cancer victim. 1972, Dr. Dean Burk, director of cytochemistry section of the federal governments National Cancer Institute, reported, “When we add Laetrile to a cancer culture under the microscope providing the enzyme glucosidase also is present, we can see the cancer cells dying off like flies.” The combination of glucosidase and laetrile would occur in human beings 100 percent of the time, as glucosidase is found prevalently in the small intestines. During his participation in the Seventh International Congress of Chemotherapy held in Prague in 1971, Dr. Burk also stated “Laetrile appears to work against many forms of cancer including lung cancer. And it is absolutely non-toxic.”
Laetrile is widely used in Mexico, Australia, Russia, Brazil, Belgium, Philippines, Costa Rica, England, Germany, Greece, Japan, Spain and Switzerland in treating cancer, just to name a few. Are all of the medical and research teams of all of these countries wrong on their views of laetrile? Each year, Mexico and Germany receive thousands of U.S. visitors for laetrile treatment. Some patients are not only able to lead longer lives but are able to fully recover and lead healthy lives.
Apricots are considered sacred and a show of wealth by the famous Hunza tribe in the Himalayan
mountains. The more apricot trees they own, the wealthier they are considered to be. The most prized food in this tribe is the apricot seed. This tribe has never had any known instance of cancer among them. Their traditional diet contains over 200% more nitriloside than the American diet.
The Abkhazians which reside deep in the Caucasus Mountains also experience the same health profile as the Hunza. Additionally the Hopi, Modoc and Navajo Indians have had a very low rate of cancer among them. In fact, it’s believed by many medical experts who support the use of a diet rich in nitrilosides that such incidences of cancer are brought about as a result of the “civilization” of these tribes as they replace their diet with that more like the rest of America. The Hopi and Navajo tribes were found to regularly ingest as much as 800 milligrams of nitriloside a day. This phenomenon has continued to be observed in both tropic and arctic regions of the world.
Follow the Money
The average patient will spend between $5,000 and $25,000 for laetrile treatment and rarely need recurring treatment. Compare this to the average cost for U.S. cancer treatment at $55,000 a year—without complications. This does not include the costs for making the patient more comfortable at home. These costs can run as much as an additional 35 percent with complications. For some, cancer treatment costs are so high they can actually prevent any treatment. Last year alone, over $219 billion was spent by patients just on medical costs of cancer treatment. This does not include the nearly $300 billion that was raised and contributed for cancer research. Yes, not curing cancer is a very profitable business for those involved in research and supposed preventative pharmaceuticals.
The money is so attractive that many researchers and doctors actually counterfeit studies and research in order to get some of the money. Between 1977 and 1980 it was determined that 62 doctors had manipulated the research data which they had provided and pocketed the fees. In 1973, a study created by the FDA itself showed that 1 out of 5 doctors would invent research data on the effect of new drugs and submit it for publication.
American drug companies pay doctors as much as $1,000 per patient to test and use their drugs on patients. This compromises the medical integrity of a doctor treating a patient if they know there’s a big check waiting in their bank account when a certain drug is used. This is in addition to the surgery and office fees charged by the doctors to treat patients. What monetary incentives do doctors, scientists, cancer organizations and politicians have to promote the effective use of a naturally occurring substance such as laetrile? None. Not one penny.
Cause and Effect
Even without big cash rewards on the line for not promoting a natural substance for the cure of cancer, is it any wonder there are misperceptions on laetrile among the medical and lay professionals? With so much misinformation being invented by so-called experts, it’s no wonder that the majority of doctors think laetrile is downright quackery. How could anyone relying strictly on hearsay and politically motivated grapevines think differently?
Research shows that none of the experts who oppose the use of laetrile ever actually used it, researched it, or did more than read information which was dispensed by others who were also inexperienced in developing their professional conclusions. Now there are generations of medical professionals misinformed on the use of laetrile—professionals viewing fiction as fact because the proper research was never performed by the FDA in the first place.
In the 1970’s, when a highly regarded scientist was actually used by the FDA to test laetrile, he came to the same conclusion as so many experts worldwide that laetrile was effective in the treatment of cancer. However, this did not bode well with the financial motive of the FDA. Instead they elected to make use of the high percentage of errors which can occur in the study and research of a medical treatment and chose to repeat laetrile testing again and again until their desired results could be founded. Evidence of research error abounds as noted by Dr. Trelford of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Ohio State University Hospital notes. Dr. Trelford states that “chemotherapy of gynecological tumors does not appear to have increased life expectancy except in sporadic cases.”
Additionally, a report by the Southern Research Institute based on research conducted for the National Cancer Institute stated that “most of the accepted drugs in the American Cancer Society’s ‘proven cure’ category produced cancer in laboratory animals that previously had been healthy!” Ultimately the scientist’s whose studies supported the use of laetrile was labeled as a quack, and the tests were ordered to be repeated again and again while making unscientific changes in the doses administered, and convoluting the
tracking of the subjects. Additionally the FDA chose to use exercise an unprecedented high and unrealistic standards of success on the laetrile studies in order that it may be deemed ineffective. Ultimately, the FDA got their studies to “show” that laetrile was “quackery”.
So, the question remains. What are we to do? Frankly, until the Laetrilegate Scandal is fully exposed, the FDA will continue to perpetuate their politically and economically charged agenda—an agenda that now comes with legal results for anyone trying to sell or promote laetrile. National arm wrestling champion Jason Vale, who claimed that his kidney and pancreas were cured by eating apricot seeds—an organic of laetrile—was convicted in 2003 for, among other things, marketing laetrile. The US Food and Drug Administration continues to seek jail sentences for vendors selling laetrile for cancer
treatment, calling it a “highly toxic product that has not shown any effect on treating cancer.” Yet laetrile can be found in common foods like almonds, apple seeds and black cherries.
Hundreds of thousands of cancer patients who undergo surgery, radiation, or chemotherapy die every year, yet these treatments continue to be touted as “safe and effective” by the FDA and the medical and pharmaceutical industry at large. Not a single death of a cancer patient has ever been attributed to the supervised use of laetrile. In fact, there are numerous studies which have shown even the most advance forms of cancer have been able to enjoy more time even though they did not begin a laetrile treatment until they were on death’s door. 
Ultimately, the answer to the question “What are we to do” is up to you.
Exposed: 10 Facts about the Breast Cancer Industry You're Not Supposed to Know (opinion)
by Mike Adams
Sunday, October 19, 2008
(NaturalNews) With Breast Cancer Awareness month fully upon us once again, retail stores have been invaded with everything pink, including "pink ribbon" candies and personal care products made with blatantly cancer-causing ingredients. Retail grocery stores like Safeway even hit up customers for donations at the cash register, promising to raise funds to find "the cure for cancer."
Consumers of course, have virtually no idea where the funds they donate actually go, nor do they know the truths about breast cancer they'll never be told by conventional cancer non-profit organizations. In this article, I'll reveal ten important myths about breast cancer, and the truths that can save your life.
Myth #1: Breast Cancer is not preventable
The Truth: Up to 98% of breast cancer cases can be prevented through diet, nutritional supplements, sunshine and exercise
It's true: Breast cancer can be almost entirely prevented through commonsense changes in diet, the addition of anti-cancer nutritional supplements, boosting vitamin D creation from sunlight, avoiding exposure to toxic chemicals in consumer products, pursuing regular exercise and eating a live foods diet.
The breast cancer industry -- which depends on the continuation of cancer for its profits and employment -- has so far refused to teach women even basic cancer prevention strategies (such as increasing the intake of vitamin D, which prevents 77% of all cancers). See: http://www.naturalnews.com/021892.html
Myth #2: Pink ribbon products are sold to raise money to support breast cancer victims.
The Truth: Nearly 100% of the funds are used to recruit more breast cancer patients into highly-lucrative
treatments that do more harm than good.
You know where all that money goes that you donate to the "search for the cure" and other cancer scams? Virtually none of it goes to actually teach women how to prevent cancer. The World Health Organization says 70% of all cancers are preventable, but the breast cancer industry helps zero percent of women actually prevent it.
Those funds actually go to recruiting breast cancer patients by offering "free" mammograms. This is the clever recruitment strategy of the cancer industry. It's sort of like a greasy garage mechanic offering a "free" checkup on your car's transmission. It's in his financial interest to find something wrong (or to break something), just like it's in the financial interests of the cancer industry to diagnose a women with cancer and scare her into expensive, high-profit treatments like chemotherapy, radiation therapy or cancer surgery. (Mammogram false positives are commonplace...)
Want proof of where these funds go? Check out this grant list at the Komen for the Cure organization, and you'll see it's almost entirely spent on recruiting more women with mammograms: http://www.komenphoenix.org/site/c....
When you read that list, note that there is not a single grant provided for nutritional education to teach women how to prevent cancer with vitamin D, cruciferous vegetables, anti-cancer herbs, supplements or to avoid dangerous cancer-causing food ingredients like sodium nitrite, MSG and chemical sweeteners.
Myth #3: The only proven treatments for breast cancer are chemotherapy and radiation
The Truth: Chemotherapy doesn't work and radiation causes cancer
Chemotherapy is a fraud, plain and simple. It's as ludicrous as poisoning patients with mercury and calling it medicine (which is something doctors did a hundred years ago, by the way). There is absolutely no reliable scientific evidence showing that chemotherapy has any positive effect whatsoever on breast cancer. Try to find the science yourself: It doesn't exist!
Sure, there's evidence that chemotherapy shrinks tumors. Too bad, however, that tumor size is irrelevant. Artificially reducing the size of a tumor does nothing to reverse the physiology of cancer in a patient's body. It doesn't initiate the healing that needs to take place to reverse cancer and stay cancer free. And this doesn't even take into account the quality of life issues here: Chemotherapy doesn't help people LIVE any longer, but it sure does make them DIE longer!
Myth #4: Chemotherapy is safe and doesn't cause permanent damage to your health
The Truth: Chemotherapy causes vomiting, hair loss, muscle loss, brain damage, heart damage, kidney damage and liver damage. Much of this damage is permanent. Read these stories to learn more:
Cancer Drug Causes Permanent Brain Damage
Chemotherapy Causes Brain Shrinkage
Chemotherapy Found to Cause Permanent Brain Damage
Myth #5: Regular mammograms are the best way to detect cancer
The Truth: Mammograms harm 10 women for every one woman they help
Here's part of a story we published in 2006, called Breast Cancer Screening Harms Ten Women for Every One That it Helps (http://www.naturalnews.com/020829.html)
"A new study by researchers from the Nordic Cochrane Centre in Denmark found that mammograms may
harm ten times as many women as they help.
The researchers examined the benefits and negative effects of seven breast cancer screening programs on 500,000 women in the United States, Canada, Scotland and Sweden. The study's authors found that for every 2,000 women who received mammograms over a 10-year period, only one would have her life prolonged, but 10 would endure unnecessary and potentially harmful treatments."
Got that? For every 2,000 women receiving mammograms, only ONE would have her life extended at all. TEN women, though, would be harmed with chemotherapy, radiation or mastectomies.
What the study didn't point out, by the way, is that all these treatments are highly profitable for the cancer industry. That's the real reason why mammograms are pushed so aggressively onto women. It's not because mammograms detect cancer; it's because mammograms make them money.
To the breast cancer industry, a woman is nothing more than a piece of meat with a cash reward attached to it. The push for mammography is a marketing ploy designed to keep women scared, misinformed and lined up to be poisoned with chemotherapy while they shell out their life savings for treatments that, for most of them, aren't even medically justified!
That's why I say the breast cancer industry is, by any honest assessment, a crime against women. In America, husbands who beat their wives are considered criminals. They're arrested and locked away. But those very same men, when wearing a doctor's coat, can assault women with chemicals, slice off their breasts with scalpels and even kill those women... all with impunity. There's not a single breast cancer doctor who has ever been arrested for the death of a patient.
The true history of western medicine's violence against women
In time, of course, this will change. Medical violence against women is a crime, regardless of whether the weapon is a fist, a baseball bat or a syringe full of chemicals that will cause permanent damage to her vital organs. In time, chemotherapy will be outlawed and breast cancer doctors will be put out of work or prosecuted for their crimes against women. Perhaps they'll even be castrated as part of a "fitting" punishment.
To all the women reading this, note carefully the history of western medicine and its numerous assaults on women over the years. Do you know where the term "hysterectomy" comes from? It comes from the belief by male doctors that women's emotions were "hysterical," and they believed the best way to "cure" women of their hysteria was to violently cut her reproductive organs out of her body.
The procedure was widely adopted by male surgeons and used for well over a hundred years to treat women who were diagnosed as suffering from virtually every kind of emotional variance you can imagine. Doctors who didn't use scalpels to remove these organs from a woman's body often resorted to so-called "pelvic massages" -- a medicalized raping of the female patient by the male doctor, of course.
Even today, tens of thousands of hysterectomies are performed each year with no medical justification whatsoever. Doctors continue to view women's bodies as diseased and abnormal, surgically removing their breasts and reproductive organs for no justifiable reason whatsoever. It's even being done today as a cancer prevention procedure, against women who have no cancer at all!
Western medicine's treatment of breast cancer patients today is little more than an extension of hundreds of years of medical violence against women by the male-dominated medical establishment.
Want proof? Notice that cancer doctors never advise men to surgically remove their testicles as a way to "prevent" testicular cancer? That's because the male surgeons performing these operations prefer to maim women, not men.
If you have the stomach for it, read the rest of the truth about how conventional doctors and surgeons commit outrageous medical violence against women and children even today: http://www.naturalnews.com/019930.html
Myth #6: BRCA-positive women should consider mastectomies to prevent cancer
The Truth: Cruciferous vegetables target BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, preventing cancer with nutrition
Women who are BRCA positive are being scared into utterly unnecessary double mastectomies -- a
procedure that benefits no one except the surgeon. What nobody is telling these women is that cruciferous vegetables contain anti-cancer nutrients that specifically target BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, protecting these women from breast cancer.
All it takes is a single ounce of fresh broccoli juice each day, or fresh sprouts, superfoods or other nutrient-dense foods or juices consumed daily.
Cancer doctors, of course, conveniently forget to tell women about these little facts. It would hurt their business if women knew how to prevent cancer on their own, at home, with everyday groceries and simple herbs.
Here's text from one study that might interest you. It shows that I3C (from broccoli) and genistein (from fermented soy) inhibit estrogen-stimulated receptor activity in a dose-dependent fashion:
"...we showed that I3C induces BRCA1 expression and that both I3C and BRCA1 inhibit oestrogen (E2)-stimulated oestrogen receptor (ER-) activity in human breast cancer cells. We now report that both I3C and
genistein induce the expression of both breast cancer susceptibility genes (BRCA1 and BRCA2) in breast (MCF-7 and T47D) and prostate (DU-145 and LNCaP) cancer cell types, in a time- and dose-dependent fashion.
Conventional cancer doctors, of course, refuse to tell women about scientific evidence like this. If women could prevent breast cancer with I3C, why would they need cancer doctors? The answer, of course, is that they wouldn't. You can buy I3C, but the way, right here: http://www.vitacost.com/NSI-I3C-Ind...
The FDA, of course, won't allow companies selling I3C supplements to tell you the scientifically-validated truth about their anti-cancer benefits. It's all part of the censorship and oppression that characterizes today's cancer industry. The U.S. government, of course, is the co-conspirator in this sad tragedy of misinformation.
It is the job of the FDA and the cancer industry to keep women stupid, uninformed and scared when it comes to breast cancer. The last thing they want is for women to be nutritionally literate.
Myth #7: The cancer non-profits are searching for a cure for cancer
The Truth: Even if one was found, they would never allow a cure to be publicized: It would destroy the cancer treatment industry
It's the great scam of the cancer industry: We're searching for a cure, they claim! Never mind the
fact that they've been using this same con since the late 60's, when they claimed to be only a few million dollars away from curing cancer forever.
The search for "the cure" is pure deception. It's a clever con to take money from people for all those silly pink ribbon activities, but the truth is that the cancer industry doesn't believe there's such a thing as cure. Just ask the FDA, the AMA or any state health licensing board: Anyone claiming to have a cancer "cure" is immediately considered a quack. Over the last several decades, countless doctors researching genuine cancer cures have been arrested, imprisoned or run out of the country. Read about Stanislaw Burzynski to learn about just one example: http://www.cancure.org/burzynski_in...
Finally, even if they actually find a "cure" (which they won't, since that would destroy the profits of the cancer industry), do you think they would give it away for free? Of course not! They'd charge hundreds of thousands of dollars for it, milking the maximum profits out of a terrified population for their newest wonder drug.
Notice, by the way, that not a single conventional breast cancer non-profit group -- nor any drug company -- has announced that its breakthrough cancer drugs will be given away for free. And that leads me to this question: If they're not planning on giving away the cure for free, then why are you giving them money for free to pay for their R&D?
Why should people donate money to the wealthiest corporations in the world (the drug companies) who are going to take their money and use it to develop a new wave of drugs that are sold to cancer victims at outrageous price markups sometimes exceeding 550,000% of the cost of the chemical ingredients?
The truth is, anyone who donates money for any such "search for the cure" is being conned outright. There's a sucker born every minute, P.T. Barnum famously said. What he neglected to add is that most of them are now buying pink products and thinking they're helping find a "cure" for cancer.
Don't be suckered. Keep your money, or invest it in vitamin D supplements or anti-cancer herbs. You want to cure cancer? Cure it in your own body first. It's a lot less expensive, and you get to keep your hair, too.
Myth #8: There is no cure for breast cancer

The Truth: There are MANY natural cures for breast cancer available right now
Just a few hours of research will turn up numerous natural cures for cancer: Vitamin D, cat's claw herbs, the Essiac formula, medicinal mushrooms, spirulina, cruciferous vegetables, green tea, graviola herbs, Chinese medicinal herbs, oxygen therapy, alkalizing water therapies and much more.
All these cures have one thing in common: They are ALL suppressed by the FDA and FTC. Telling the truth about anti-cancer foods, herbs or supplements is now a criminal offense in America.
Myth #9: If my mother had breast cancer, I'll get it too
The Truth: Breast Cancer is not caused by bad genes; it's caused by bad diets
This is another common lie told to woman by cancer doctors to scare them into medically unnecessary cancer "treatments" (which can kill you or harm you). Did you know that radiation treatment for one breast actually causes cancer in the OTHER breast? See: http://www.naturalnews.com/News_000...
Your genes don't control your health, but what you put in your mouth and on your skin has near-total control over your health! If your parents had cancer, they were no doubt eating cancer-causing foods (processed meats) and not using anti-cancer foods, superfoods, herbs and supplements. They were also likely deficient in vitamin D, and they probably didn't drink fresh anti-cancer vegetables on a daily basis (www.JuiceFeasting.com). Lastly, they no doubt had regular exposure to cancer-causing chemicals: Cigarette smoke, chemical solvents, perfume chemicals, household cleaners, pesticides, skin care products, conventional cosmetics, etc.
Read the truth about processed meats: http://www.naturalnews.com/022288.html
Myth #10: Sunlight causes cancer
The Truth: Sunlight generates Vitamin D in your skin, which prevents 78% of ALL cancers
The disinformation put out by the cancer industry about sunlight has reached a level of absurdity that's virtually unmatched in the history of medicine. If you believe what the American Cancer Society tells you (still being suckered?), sunlight causes cancer!
Yes, that's right: Sunlight causes cancer, they claim. According to the entire cancer industry (and most dermatologists, too), you'd be much better off hiding in a cave, or living your life under fluorescent lights or smothered in a layer of toxic sunscreen chemicals (which actually DO cause cancer, by the way).
Somehow, the human race has miraculously managed to survived 350,000 years of natural sunlight without be obliterated. This is nothing short of astonishing, given that sunlight is so deadly. It sort of makes me wonder how the human race survived at all, with sunlight striking any given area of the Earth, say, 50% of the time. Did our ancestors live underground?
The ploy here is so obvious that it's child's play to expose their strategy: Cancer industry authorities know that vitamin D prevents 77% of all cancers. Since sunlight exposure causes the skin to generate vitamin D in the human body (for free, no less), the cancer industry has come to the realization that in order for it to continue surviving (and exploiting cancer patients), it has to scare people away from anything that might actually prevent or cure cancer.
This is the whole reason behind the sunlight scare campaigns, of course. It's all just a clever profit strategy to keep people sick and diseased by enforcing widespread vitamin D deficiency across the human population. Note, too, that this deficiency is especially prominent in men and women of darker skin color, which means the cancer industry's whole campaign against sunlight is filled with disturbing racial overtones that smack of genocide. (Ever wonder why breast cancer is FAR more aggressive in black women and white women? It's the vitamin D deficiency caused by the skin color, of course. But cancer docs never tell their black patients anything about it...)
Remember this: Healthy people with abundant vitamin D levels in their blood don't get cancer and they almost never catch colds. They also don't need vaccines, by the way. These are three huge profit centers for conventional medicine: Cancer, vaccines and colds. This is why the industry goes to such great lengths to (hilariously) try to discredit the sun.
It's hilarious because the sun, of course, is the source of ALL life on our planet. Without the sun, there would be no plants, no bacteria, no animals, no fish and certainly no humans. The sun is the single most important source of life on our planet, and without it, we'd all die in a matter of a few hours (from the cold alone). That the cancer industry would declare war on the sun is just a disturbing example of how far removed modern medicine is from the real world.
Why the cancer industry is dangerous to women
The cancer industry people are living in a world of self-reinforced fictions, where sunlight is bad and chemotherapy chemicals are good; where food is useless but pharmaceuticals are essential. Almost everything said to you by a conventional cancer doctor is the opposite of what's real, and yet they believe their own delusions only because those delusions are so widely shared by their colleagues. It is circular logic at its worst, driven by arrogance and greed, and totally lacking any discernable degree of intellectual honesty or compassion for the value of a human life.
The cancer industry is, in a very real way, a danger to the safety of men and women alike. It is a kind of home-grown medical terrorism, through which the application of fear and disinformation results in massive corporate profits that are only exceeded by the body count of our dead women; our mothers, daughters, sisters, aunts and nieces who fall victim to conventional cancer treatments. They are being lost to a medical regime wielding weapons of mass destruction: Chemical weapons (chemotherapy), radiological weapons (radiation) and weapons of sharp steel (scalpels).
These weapons of medical violence are being directed at our women for one purpose only: To secure profits that go into the hands of a few wealthy men who sit at the top of these organizations, raking in fifty-million-dollar salaries while the cancer treatment centers send women home in body bags.
It is the ultimate act of cruelty to promise a woman "treatment" and then deliver poison.
It is the ultimate act of violence to promise a woman "healing" and then mutilate her body.
The cancer industry, as operated today, is ultimately a criminal organization engaged in acts of medical violence against women.
Why women should revolt against the cancer industry
Even worse, it is being staffed by women, cheered by women and supported by women. In World War II, before the Jews were exterminated, Nazi soldiers pried the gold fillings out of their mouths. The fillings were sold off, and the money went to two places: The pockets of the top Nazi commanders, and the continued funding of the prison camps and extermination chambers. The Jewish prisoners, in other words, paid for their own gas chamber treatments using the gold right out of their own mouths.
Today, women are paying for their own cancer industry chemical assaults using the dollars right out of their own pockets. Those who support the conventional breast cancer non-profits are feeding the very beast that may someday destroy them and send them home poisoned, emaciated, or mutilated beyond repair.
And you know what the pink ribbon non-profits will do to help these women? WIGS. They'll give them wigs to cover their hairless heads.
It is no coincidence that women who receive chemotherapy visually resemble the women of the Nazi concentration camps. They become emaciated through dangerous losses of muscle mass and bone mass. They lose their hair, vomit their food and suffer the devastating effects of massive nutrient loss.
They are, in effect, both prisoners of the same system of control and violence against women. It is a system that has existed for thousands of years, taking on new names and new faces as it shifts from one corner of the planet to another.
Today, that system of abuse and violence against women has a corporate logo, a cute pink symbol and a clever slogan. It has hundreds of offices all across the country, and thousands of pink products in retail stores. It is a system of violence against women, painted pink and repackaged as something that cares for women; and in that disguise, aided by the purchasing dollars of gullible consumers, it is ensnaring women in a system of such great evil that it can only be accurately compared to historical events like the Holocaust.
May God save our women from the cancer industry, lest we lose four generations to this modern chemical holocaust that has been unleashed against our mothers, daughters, grandmothers and sisters. And if our government will not protect us from this home-grown terrorism that seeks to turn the bodies of women into corporate profit centers, I hope that the People of America will one day wake up and take all justified (non-violent) measures to protect themselves from the cancer industry.
It is odd, I think, that women will protest in front of abortion clinics in order to save the life of an unborn child, and yet that same woman will say nothing when a cancer doctor destroys the life of her own mother or daughter. It is time to start protesting the cancer clinics and cancer non-profits. It is time to end this chemical holocaust and this medical violence against women. The women should be marching against mammograms and chemotherapy, demanding the arrest and prosecution of cancer surgeons who perform unjustified double mastectomies.
Throughout history, women have fought hard for the right to vote, to pursue an education and to be heard. I believe it is time that women exercised those rights to protect their freedoms and their lives from the conventional cancer industry.
A New Way to Fight Cancer?
Scientists and patients are buzzing about DCA, an existing drug newly recognized as a potentially powerful cancer treatment. But, of course, more research is needed.
by Jerry Adler
February 23, 2007
There are no magic bullets in the fight against cancer: that's the first thing every responsible scientist mentions when discussing a possible new treatment, no matter how promising. For decades, research has emphasized the differences among the many kinds of cancer, their origins in the complex interplay between genes and environment, and the development of ever more sophisticated and tightly focused therapies. Everyone knows that cancer will not be cured the way antibiotics cure a staph infection.
If there were a magic bullet, though, it might be something like dichloroacetate, or DCA, a drug that kills cancer cells by exploiting a fundamental weakness found in a wide range of solid tumors. So far, though, it kills them just in test tubes and in rats infected with human cancer cells; it has never been tested against cancer in living human beings. There are countless compounds that can do the same thing that never turn into viable treatments. But DCA has one big advantage over most of those: it is an existing drug whose side effects are well-studied and relatively tolerable. Also, it's a small molecule that might be able to cross the
blood-brain barrier to reach otherwise intractable brain tumors. Within days after a technical paper on DCA appeared in the journal Cancer Cell last week, the lead author, Dr. Evangelos Michelakis of the University of Alberta, was deluged with calls and e-mails from prospective patients—to whom he can say only, "Hang in there." There are no magic bullets against cancer.
Still, Michelakis may be onto something important. "The work is very interesting, from a conceptual standpoint," says Dr. Dario Altieri, director of the cancer center at the University of Massachusetts Medical School in Worcester. DCA is a remarkably simple molecule related to acetic acid, better known as vinegar. It acts in the body to promote the activity of the mitochondria, the cellular structures where glucose is oxidized to provide energy; its main pharmaceutical use has been to treat certain rare metabolic disorders. But the mitochondria have another function: they initiate apoptosis, the fail-safe process by which cells with damaged DNA destroy themselves before they can do damage. This goes on continually in the body. But when a cell turns cancerous, it begins processing glucose outside the mitochondria; the mitochondria shut down, and the cell becomes immune to apoptosis—immortal, until it kills its own host. Researchers have assumed that the mitochondria in cancer cells were irreparably damaged. But Michelakis wondered if that was really true. With his colleagues he used DCA to turn back on the mitochondria in cancer cells—which promptly died.
Remarkably, Michelakis isn't even an oncologist; he's a cardiologist who was studying pulmonary
hypertension, a deadly condition in which the cells lining the walls of the blood vessels in the lungs inexplicably proliferate. His research suggested that DCA could help that, too, but the possibility that he might be on the track of a treatment for cancer was too tempting to pass up. One of the great things about DCA is that it's a simple compound, in the public domain, and could be produced for pennies a dose. But that's also a problem, because big drug companies are unlikely to spend a billion dollars or so on large-scale clinical trials for a compound they can't patent. So Michelakis and his colleagues Stephen Archer and John Mackey, with the support of the University of Alberta and the Alberta Cancer Board, are embarking on the process themselves, hoping to interest foundations or private philanthropists in underwriting their research. (Anyone interested in helping can click here.)
They have one advantage: because DCA is already in use, they can combine Phase I trials, meant to establish safety, with Phase II, which look at whether the compound actually works. The first subjects, says Mackey, will probably be patients with breast, lung or colon cancers that have recurred after initial treatment—in other words, people without much hope of a cure. He would like nothing better than to offer them some hope. But again, he warns, in cancer, there are no magic bullets.
Mammograms cause breast cancer (and other cancer facts you probably never knew)
by: Dawn Prate
Monday, August 15, 2005
Breast cancer is the leading cause of death among American women between the ages of 44 and 55. Dr. Gofinan, in his book, Preventing Breast Cancer, cites this startling statistic along with an in-depth look at mammographic screening, an early-detection practice that agencies like the American Cancer Society recommend to women of all age groups. According to most health experts, catching a tumor in its early stages increases a woman's chances of survival by at least 17 percent.
The most common method for early detection is mammography. A mammogram is an X-ray picture of your breast that can reveal tumor growths otherwise undetectable in a physical exam. Like all x-rays, mammograms use doses of ionizing radiation to create this image. Radiologists then analyze the image for any abnormal growths. Despite continuous improvements and innovations, mammography has garnered a sizable opposition in the medical community because of an error rate that is still high and the amount of harmful radiation used in the procedure.
Effectiveness of Mammography
Is mammography an effective tool for detecting tumors? Some critics say no. In a Swedish study of 60,000 women, 70 percent of the mammographically detected tumors weren't tumors at all. These "false positives" aren't just financial and emotional strains, they may also lead to many unnecessary and invasive biopsies. In fact, 70 to 80 percent of all positive mammograms do not, upon biopsy, show any presence of cancer.
At the same time, mammograms also have a high rate of missed tumors, or "false negatives." Dr. Samuel S. Epstein, in his book, The Politics Of Cancer, claims that in women ages 40 to 49, one in four instances of cancer is missed at each mammography. The National Cancer Institute (NCI) puts the false negative rate even higher at 40 percent among women ages 40-49. National Institutes of Health spokespeople also admit that mammograms miss 10 percent of malignant tumors in women over 50. Researchers have found that breast tissue is denser among younger women, making it difficult to detect tumors. For this reason, false negatives are twice as likely to occur in premenopausal mammograms.
Radiation Risks
Many critics of mammography cite the hazardous health effects of radiation. In 1976, the controversy over radiation and mammography reached a saturation point. At that time mammographic technology delivered five to 10 rads (radiation-absorbed doses) per screening, as compared to 1 rad in current screening methods. In women between the ages of 35 and 50, each rad of exposure increased the risk of breast cancer by one percent, according to Dr. Frank Rauscher, then-director of the NCI.
According to Russell L. Blaylock, MD, one estimate is that annual radiological breast exams increase the risk of breast cancer by two percent a year. So over 10 years the risk will have increased 20 percent. In the 1960s and 70s, women, even those who received 10 screenings a year, were never told the risk they faced from exposure. In the midst of the 1976 radiation debate, Kodak, a major manufacturer of mammography film, took out full-page ads in scientific journals entitled About breast cancer and X-rays: A hopeful message from industry on a sober topic.
Despite better technology and decreased doses of radiation, scientists still claim mammography is a substantial risk. Dr. John W. Gofman, an authority on the health effects of ionizing radiation, estimates that 75 percent of breast cancer could be prevented by avoiding or minimizing exposure to the ionizing radiation. This includes mammography, x-rays and other medical and dental sources.
Since mammographic screening was introduced, the incidence of a form of breast cancer called ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) has increased by 328 percent. Two hundred percent of this increase is allegedly due to mammography. In addition to harmful radiation, mammography may also help spread existing cancer cells due to the considerable pressure placed on the woman's breast during the procedure. According to some health practitioners, this compression could cause existing cancer cells to metastasize from the breast tissue.
Cancer research has also found a gene, called oncogene AC, that is extremely sensitive to even small doses of radiation. A significant percentage of women in the United States have this gene, which could increase their risk of mammography-induced cancer. They estimate that 10,000 A-T carriers will die of breast cancer this year due to mammography.
The risk of radiation is apparently higher among younger women. The NCI released evidence that, among women under 35, mammography could cause 75 cases of breast cancer for every 15 it identifies. Another Canadian study found a 52 percent increase in breast cancer mortality in young women given annual mammograms. Dr. Samuel Epstein also claims that pregnant women exposed to radiation could endanger their fetus. He advises against mammography during pregnancy because "the future risks of leukemia to your unborn child, not to mention birth defects, are just not worth it." Similarly, studies reveal that children exposed to radiation are more likely to develop breast cancer as adults.
Navigating the Statistics
While the number of deaths caused by breast cancer has decreased, the incidence of breast cancer is still rising. Since 1940, the incidence of breast cancer has risen by one to two percent every year. Between 1973 and 1991, the incidence of breast cancer in females over 65 rose nearly 40 percent in the United States.
Some researchers attribute this increase to better detection technologies; i.e., as the number of women screened for breast cancer rises, so does the number of reported cases. Other analysts say the correlation between mammographic screening and increases in breast cancer is much more ominous, suggesting radiation exposure is responsible for the growing number of cases. While the matter is still being debated, Professor Sandra Steingraber offers ways to navigate these statistics. According to Steingraber, the rise in breast cancer predates the introduction of mammograms as a common diagnostic tool. In addition, the groups of women in whom breast cancer incidence is ascending most swiftly – blacks and the elderly – are also least likely to get regular mammograms.
The majority of health experts agree that the risk of breast cancer for women under 35 is not high enough to warrant the risk of radiation exposure. Similarly, the risk of breast cancer to women over 55 justifies the risk of mammograms. The statistics about mammography and women between the ages of 40 and 55 are the most contentious. A 1992 Canadian National Breast Cancer Study showed that mammography had no positive effect on mortality for women between the ages of 40 and 50. In fact, the study seemed to suggest that women in that age group are more likely to die of breast cancer when screened regularly.
Burton Goldberg, in his book, Alternative Medicine, recommends that women under 50 avoid screening mammograms, although the American Cancer Society encourages mammograms every two years for women ages 40 to 49. Trying to settle this debate, a 1997 consensus panel appointed by the NIH ruled that there was no evidence that mammograms for this age group save lives; they may even do more harm than good. The panel advises women to weigh the risks with their doctors and decide for themselves.
New Screening Technologies
While screening is an important step in fighting breast cancer, many researchers are looking for alternatives to mammography. Burton Goldberg totes the safety and accuracy of new thermography technologies. Able to detect cancers at a minute physical stage of development, thermography does not use x-rays, nor is there any compression of the breast. Also important, new thermography technologies do not lose effectiveness with dense breast tissue, decreasing the chances of false-negative results.
Some doctors are now offering digital mammograms. Digital mammography is a mammography system in which x-ray film is replaced by solid-state detectors that convert x-rays into electric signals. Though radiation is still used, digital mammography requires a much smaller dose. The electrical signals are used to produce images that can be electronically manipulated; a physician can zoom in, magnify and optimize different parts of breast tissue without having to take an additional image.
The experts speak on mammograms and breast cancer:
Regular mammography of younger women increases their cancer risks. Analysis of controlled trials over the last decade has shown consistent increases in breast cancer mortality within a few years of commencing screening. This confirms evidence of the high sensitivity of the premenopausal breast, and on cumulative carcinogenic effects of radiation.
The Politics Of Cancer by Samuel S Epstein MD, page 539
In his book, "Preventing Breast Cancer," Dr. Gofinan says that breast cancer is the leading cause of death among American women between the ages of forty-four and fifty-five. Because breast tissue is highly radiation-sensitive, mammograms can cause cancer. The danger can be heightened by a woman's genetic makeup, preexisting benign breast disease, artificial menopause, obesity, and hormonal imbalance.
Death By Medicine by Gary Null PhD, page 23
"The risk of radiation-induced breast cancer has long been a concern to mammographers and has driven the efforts to minimize radiation dose per examination," the panel explained. "Radiation can cause breast cancer in women, and the risk is proportional to dose. The younger the woman at the time of exposure, the greater her lifetime risk for breast cancer.
Under The Influence Modern Medicine by Terry A Rondberg DC, page 122
Furthermore, there is clear evidence that the breast, particularly in premenopausal women, is highly sensitive to radiation, with estimates of increased risk of breast cancer of up to 1% for every rad (radiation absorbed dose) unit of X-ray exposure. This projects up to a 20% increased cancer risk for a woman who, in the 1970s, received 10 annual mammograms of an average two rads each. In spite of this, up to 40% of women over 40 have had mammograms since the mid-1960s, some annually and some with exposures of 5 to 10 rads in a single screening from older, high-dose equipment.
The Politics Of Cancer by Samuel S Epstein MD, page 537
No less questionable—or controversial—has been the use of X rays to detect breast cancer: mammography. The American Cancer Society initially promoted the procedure as a safe and simple way to detect breast tumors early and thus allow women to undergo mastectomies before their cancers had metastasized.
The Cancer Industry by Ralph W Moss, page 23
The American Cancer Society, together with the American College of Radiologists, has insisted on pursuing largescale mammography screening programs for breast cancer, including its use in younger women, even though the NCI and other experts are now agreed that these are likely to cause more cancers than could possibly be detected.
The Politics Of Cancer by Samuel S Epstein MD, page 291
A number of "cancer societies" argued, saying the tests — which cost between $50-200 each - - are a necessity for all women over 40, despite the fact that radiation from yearly mammograms during ages 40-49 has been estimated to cause one additional breast cancer death per 10,000 women.
Under The Influence Modern Medicine by Terry A Rondberg DC, page 21
Mammograms Add to Cancer Risk—mammography exposes the breast to damaging ionizing radiation. John W. Gofman, M.D., Ph.D., an authority on the health effects of ionizing radiation, spent 30 years studying the effects of low-dose radiation on humans. He estimates that 75% of breast cancer could be prevented by avoiding or minimizing exposure to the ionizing radiation from mammography, X rays, and other medical sources. Other research has shown that, since mammographic screening was introduced in 1983, the incidence of a form of breast cancer called ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), which represents 12% of all breast cancer cases, has increased by 328%, and 200% of this increase is due to the use of mammography.69 In addition to exposing a woman to harmful radiation, the mammography procedure may help spread an existing mass of cancer cells. During a mammogram, considerable pressure must be placed on the woman's breast, as the breast is squeezed between two flat plastic surfaces. According to some health practitioners, this compression could cause existing cancer cells to metastasize from the breast tissue.
Alternative Medicine by Burton Goldberg, page 588
In fact the benefits of annual screening to women age 40 to 50, who are now being aggressively recruited, are at best controversial. In this age group, one in four cancers is missed at each mammography. Over a decade of pre-menopausal screening, as many as three in 10 women will be mistakenly diagnosed with breast cancer. Moreover, international studies have shown that routine premenopausal mammography is associated with increased breast cancer death rates at older ages. Factors involved include: the high sensitivity of the premenopausal breast to the cumulative carcinogenic effects of mammographic X-radiation; the still higher sensitivity to radiation of women who carry the A-T gene; and the danger that forceful and often painful compression of the breast during mammography may rupture small blood vessels and encourage distant spread of undetected cancers.
The Politics Of Cancer by Samuel S Epstein MD, page 540
Since a mammogram is basically an x-ray (radiation) of the breast, I do not recommend mammograms to my patients for two reasons: 1) Few radiologists are able to read mammogams correctly, therefore limiting their effectiveness. Even the man who developed this technique stated on national television that only about six radiologists in the United States could read them correctly. 2) In addition, each time the breasts are exposed to an x-ray, the risk of breast cancer increases by 2 percent.
The Hope of Living Cancer Free by Francisco Contreras MD, page 104
Mammography itself is radiation: an X-ray picture of the breast to detect a potential tumor. Each woman must weigh for herself the risks and benefits of mammography. As with most carcinogens, there is a latency period or delay between the time of irradiation and the occurrence of breast cancer. This delay can vary up to decades for different people. Response to radiation is especially dramatic in children. Women who received X-rays of the breast area as children have shown increased rates of breast cancer as adults. The first increase is reflected in women younger than thirty-five, who have early onset breast cancer. But for this exposed group, flourishing breast cancer rates continue for another forty years or longer.
Eat To Beat Cancer by J Robert Hatherill, page 132
The use of women as guinea pigs is familiar. There is revealing consistency between the tamoxifen trial and the 1970s trial by the NCI and American Cancer Society involving high-dose mammography of some 300,000 women. Not only is there little evidence of effectiveness of mammography in premeno-pausal women, despite NCI's assurances no warnings were given of the known high risks of breast cancer from the excessive X-ray doses then used. There has been no investigation of the incidence of breast cancer in these high-risk women. Of related concern is the NCI's continuing insistence on premeno-pausal mammography, in spite of contrary warnings by the American College of Physicians and the Canadian Breast Cancer Task Force and in spite of persisting questions about hazards even at current low-dose exposures. These problems are compounded by the NCI's failure to explore safe alternatives, especially transillumination with infrared light scanning.
The Politics Of Cancer by Samuel S Epstein MD, page 544
High Rate of False Positives—mammography's high rate of false-positive test results wastes money and creates unnecessary emotional trauma. A Swedish study of 60,000 women, aged 40-64, who were screened for breast cancer revealed that of the 726 actually referred to oncologists for treatment, 70% were found to be cancer free. According to The Lancet, of the 5% of mammograms that suggest further testing, up to 93% are false positives. The Lancet report further noted that because the great majority of positive screenings are false positives, these inaccurate results lead to many unnecessary biopsies and other invasive surgical procedures. In fact, 70% to 80% of all positive mammograms do not, on biopsy, show any presence of cancer.71 According to some estimates, 90% of these "callbacks" result from unclear readings due to dense overlying breast tissue.72
Alternative Medicine by Burton Goldberg, page 588
"Radiation-related breast cancers occur at least 10 years after exposure," continued the panel. "Radiation from yearly mammograms during ages 40-49 has been estimated to cause one additional breast cancer death per 10,000 women."
Under The Influence Modern Medicine by Terry A Rondberg DC, page 122
According to the National Cancer Institute, there is a high rate of missed tumors in women ages 40-49 which results in 40% false negative test results. Breast tissue in younger women is denser, which makes it more difficult to detect tumours, so tumours grow more quickly in younger women, and tumours may develop between screenings. Because there is no reduction in mortality from breast cancer as a direct result of early mammogram, it is recommended that women under fifty avoid screening mammograms although the American Cancer Society still recommends a mammogram every two years for women age 40-49. Dr. Love states, "We know that mammography works and will be a lifesaving tool for at least 30%."
Treating Cancer With Herbs by Michael Tierra ND, page 467
Equivocal mammogram results lead to unnecessary surgery, and the accuracy rate of mammograms is poor. According to the National Cancer Institute (NCI), in women ages 40-49, there is a high rate of "missed tumors," resulting in 40% false-negative mammogram results. Breast tissue in younger women is denser, which makes it more difficult to detect tumors, and tumors grow more quickly in younger women, so cancer may develop between screenings.
Alternative Medicine by Burton Goldberg, page 973
Even worse, spokespeople for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) admit that mammograms miss 25 percent of malignant tumors in women in their 40s (and 10 percent in older women). In fact, one Australian study found that more than half of the breast cancers in younger women are not detectable by mammograms.
Underground Cures by Health Sciences Institute, page 42
Whatever you may be told, refuse routine mammograms to detect early breast cancer, especially if you are premenopausal. The X-rays may actually increase your chances of getting cancer. If you are older, and there are strong reasons to suspect that you may have breast cancer, the risks may be worthwhile. Very few circumstances, if any, should persuade you to have X-rays taken if you are pregnant. The future risks of leukaemia to your unborn child, not to mention birth defects, are just not worth it.
The Politics Of Cancer by Samuel S Epstein MD, page 305
Other medical research has shown that the incidence of a form of breast cancer known as ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), which accounts for 12% of all breast cancer cases, increased by 328% — and 200% of this increase is due to the use of mammography!
Under The Influence Modern Medicine by Terry A Rondberg DC, page 123
As the controversy heated up in 1976, it was revealed that the hundreds of thousands of women enrolled in the program were never told the risk they faced from the procedure (ibid.). Young women faced the greatest danger. In the thirty-five- to fifty-year-old age group, each mammogram increased the subject's chance of contracting breast cancer by 1 percent, according to Dr. Frank Rauscher, then director of the National Cancer Institute (New York Times, August 23, 1976).
The Cancer Industry by Ralph W Moss, page 24
Because there is no reduction in mortality from breast cancer as a direct result of early mammograms, it is recommended that women under 50 avoid screening mammograms, although the American Cancer Society is still recommending a mammogram every two years for women ages 40-49. The NCI recommends that, after age 35, women perform monthly breast self-exams. For women over 50, many doctors still advocate mammograms. However, breast self-exams and safer, more accurate technologies such as thermography should be strongly considered as options to mammography.
Alternative Medicine by Burton Goldberg, page 973
In the midst of the debate, Kodak took out full-page ads in scientific journals entitled "About breast cancer and X-rays: A hopeful message from industry on a sober topic" (see Science, July 2, 1976). Kodak is a major manufacturer of mammography film.
The Cancer Industry by Ralph W Moss, page 24
The largest and most credible study ever done to evaluate the impact of routine mammography on survival has concluded that routine mammograms do significantly reduce deaths from breast cancer. Scientists in the United States, Sweden, Britain, and Taiwan compared the number of deaths from breast cancer diagnosed in the 20 years before mammogram screening became available with the number in the 20 years after its introduction. The research was based on the histories and treatment of 210,000 Swedish women ages 20 to 69. The researchers found that death from breast cancer dropped 44 percent in women who had routine mammography. Among those who refused mammograms during this time period there was only a 16 percent reduction in death from this disease (presumably the decrease was due to better treatment of the malignancy).
Dr Isadore Rosenfeld's Breakthrough Health By Isadore Rosenfeld MD, page 47
In 1993—seventeen years after the first pilot study—the biochemist Mary Wolff and her colleagues conducted the first carefully designed, major study on this issue. They analyzed DDE and PCB levels in the stored blood specimens of 14,290 New York City women who had attended a mammography screening clinic. Within six months, fifty-eight of these women were diagnosed with breast cancer. Wolff matched each of these fifty-eight women to control subjects—women without cancer but of the same age, same menstrual status, and so on—who had also visited the clinic. The blood samples of the women with breast cancer were then compared to their cancer-free counterparts.
Living Downstream by Sandra Steingraber PhD, page 12
One reason may be that mammograms actually increase mortality. In fact numerous studies to date have shown that among the under-50s, more women die from breast cancer among screened groups than among those not given mammograms. The results of the Canadian National Breast Cancer Screening Trial published in 1993, after a screen of 50,000 women between 40-49, showed that more tumors were detected in the screened group, but not only were no lives saved but 36 percent more women died from
The Cancer Handbook by Lynne McTaggart, page 57
One Canadian study found a 52 percent increase in breast cancer mortality in young women given annual mammograms, a procedure whose stated purpose is to prevent cancer. Despite evidence of the link between cancer and radiation exposure to women from mammography, the American Cancer Society has promoted the practice without reservation. Five radiologists have served as ACS presidents.53
When Healing Becomes A Crime by Kenny Ausubel, page 233
Premenopausal women carrying the A-T gene, about 1.5 percent of women, are more radiation sensitive and at higher cancer risk from mammography. It has been estimated that up to 10,000 breast cancer cases each year are due to mammography of A-T carriers.
The Politics Of Cancer by Samuel S Epstein MD, page 539
A study reported that mammography combined with physical exams found 3,500 cancers, 42 percent of which could not be detected by physical exam. However, 31 percent of the tumors were noninfiltrating cancer. Since the course of breast cancer is long, the time difference in cancer detected through mammography may not be a benefit in terms of survival.
Woman's Encyclopedia Of Natural Healing by Dr Gary Null, page 86
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists also has called for more mammograms among women over 50. However, constant screening still can miss breast cancer. mammograms are at their poorest in detecting breast cancer when the woman is under 50.
The Cancer Handbook by Lynne McTaggart, page 53
Despite its shortcomings, every woman between the ages of fifty and sixty-nine should have one every year. I also recommend them annually for women over seventy, even though early detection isn't as important for the slow-growing form of breast cancer they tend to get. One mammogram should probably be taken at age forty to establish a baseline, but how often women should have them after that is debatable. Some authorities favor annual screening. Others feel there's not enough evidence to support screening at all before fifty. Still others believe that every two years is sufficient. I lean toward having individual women and their doctors go over the pros and cons and make their own decisions. Finally, a mammogram is appropriate at any age if a lump has been detected.
The Longevity Code By Zorba Paster MD, page 234
For breast cancer, thermography offers a very early warning system, often able to pinpoint a cancer process five years before it would be detectable by mammography. Most breast tumors have been growing slowly for up to 20 years before they are found by typical diagnostic techniques. Thermography can detect cancers when they are at a minute physical stage of development, when it is still relatively easy to halt and reverse the progression of the cancer. No rays of any kind enter the patient's body; there is no pain or compressing of the breasts as in a mammogram. While mammography tends to lose effectiveness with dense breast tissue, thermography is not dependent upon tissue densities.
Alternative Medicine by Burton Goldberg, page 587
National Cancer Institute and American Cancer Society skewered in new book by leading cancer expert
Tuesday, June 14, 2011 by: Neev M. Arnell
(NaturalNews) A new book by leading cancer expert, Dr. Samuel S. Epstein, skewers the National Cancer Institute and American Cancer Society and blames the organizations for America losing the war against cancer.
In the book, "National Cancer Institute and American Cancer Society: Criminal Indifference to Cancer Prevention and Conflicts of Interest," Epstein argues that the NCI and ACS have spent tens of billions of taxpayer and charity dollars focusing on treatment to the exclusion of prevention, which has allowed cancer rates to skyrocket, with the disease now affecting nearly one in two men and more than one in three women. Furthermore, the author claims that not only do numerous conflicts of interest exist within the NCI and ACS, but the NCI and ACS are also withholding a mass of information on avoidable causes of cancer.
Epstein, who has served as a consultant for the U.S. Senate Committee on Public Works, is an internationally recognized authority on avoidable causes of cancer, particularly carcinogen exposure through conduits such as food, air, water, household products, cosmetics, prescription drugs or industrial carcinogens in the workplace.
Epstein is professor emeritus of Environmental and Occupational Medicine at the University of Illinois School of Public Health and chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition. He has published more than 270-peer reviewed articles and 20 books, including the prize-winning 1978 The Politics of Cancer, and has appeared on national media, including NPR, 60 Minutes, Face the Nation, Meet the Press, The McNeil/Lehrer News Hour, Good Morning America and The Today Show. He was a key expert in the banning of hazardous products including DDT, chlordane and aldrin. In his new book, he is now the leading critic of the cancer establishment for its indifference to prevention of the disease, which, for the ACS, he claims, borders on hostility.
Cancer funding skyrockets along with cancer rates, followed by exaggerated claims of progress
The cancer industry has made a series of misleading claims about the advances in the war against cancer over
the past three decades, wrote Epstein.
Some of the false claims, according to Epstein, include the industry's 1984 announcement by the NCI that cancer mortality would be halved by 2000, the 1998 NCI and ACS Report Card announcement of a reversal in the almost twenty-year trend of increasing cancer incidence and death, and the 2003 pledge by NCI Director and former ACS president-elect Andrew von Eschenbach to "eliminate suffering and death from cancer by 2015."
The NCI, ACS and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also claimed that "considerable progress has been made in reducing the [number of people with cancer] in the U.S. population" in its 2003 "Annual Report to the Nation on the Status of Cancer, 1975-2000."
The claim, however, is not consistent with NCI's own data, Epstein said, which shows the overall number of people with cancer and incidence rates actually increased by 18 percent. The data also shows a dramatic increase in nonsmoking-related cancers, according to Epstein, including a 104 percent increase in liver cancer, an 88 percent increase in prostate cancer, a 54 percent increase in thyroid and testicular cancer, a 29 percent increase in breast cancer and a 14 percent increase in brain cancer. Epstein also notes the overall cancer mortality rates have remained unchanged and have increase by 6 percent for blacks.
It seems that the more we spend on cancer, the more cancer we get, Epstein said, because while the number of people with cancer goes up, so does the NCI budget paid for by tax payers and charity. The NCI budget has increased 25-fold, from $220 million to $4.6 billion, between 1971 and 2000.
Prevention is the key
The fixation on "damage control" instead of prevention is the root cause of the booming cancer rates in the face of billions of dollars aimed at elimination of the disease, according to Epstein.
He claims the NCI priorities are all wrong. The opening statement of the NCI's 2001 Cancer Facts report says that "cancer prevention is a major component and current priority -- to reduce suffering and death from cancer." Meanwhile the report claimed that only 12 percent of the NCI's then $3.75 billion budget was allocated to prevention.
Epstein shows that the actual attention to prevention is probably even less, by citing an analysis of a 1992 NCI budget showing that less than 2.5 percent of its then $2 billion budget was spent on prevention.
Epstein further crucifies NCI stating that prevention tactics defined by NCI only covered the value of avoiding smoking and a bad diet, while wholly ignoring the myriad of environmental and occupational carcinogens.
NCI & ACS withholding a mass of cancer prevention information
The NCI has failed to inform the public of published scientific information on a wide range of avoidable causes of multiple cancers, Epstein said.
According to Epstein, there are three major categories of avoidable causes including:
1. Environmental contaminants in air, water, soil, the workplace, and food;
2. Carcinogenic ingredients in consumer products, particularly pesticides;
3. Carcinogenic prescription drugs and high-dose diagnostic radiation, particularly pediatric CAT scans.
Epstein wrote, "NCI's silence on cancer prevention is in flagrant violation of the 1971 National Cancer Act's specific charge to disseminate cancer information to the public. This silence is in further violation of the 1988 Amendments to the National Cancer Program, which called for an expanded and intensified research program for the prevention of cancer caused by occupational or environmental exposure to carcinogens."
Epstein blamed this NCI failure to inform Congress and regulatory agencies of avoidable carcinogens for encouraging petrochemical and other industries to continue manufacturing products containing carcinogens and encouraging corporate polluters to continue polluting.
NCI's aversion to publicizing avoidable carcinogens has even gone as far as suppression and denial, Epstein said, quoting the following examples:
"In 1983, the Department of Health and Human Services directed NCI to investigate the risks of thyroid cancer from I-131 radioactive fallout following atom bomb tests in Nevada in the late 1950s and early 1960s."
"NCI released its report in 1997, based on data which had been available for over fourteen years, predicting up to 210,000 thyroid cancers from radioactive fallout. These cancers, whose incidence has almost doubled since 1973, could have been readily prevented had the NCI warned the public in time and advised them to take thyroid medication."
"At a September 1999 hearing by the Senate Subcommittee of the Committee on Government Affairs,
former Senator John Glenn (D-OH) charged that the NCI investigation was plagued by lack of public participation and openness. Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) charged that NCI's conduct was a travesty."
[Just] as serious is NCI's frank suppression of information. At a 1996 San Francisco Town Hall Meeting on breast cancer, chaired by Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), former NCI director Richard Klausner insisted that "low level diagnostic radiation does not demonstrate an increased risk." However, this was contrary to long-term studies on patients with spinal curvature (scoliosis), which showed that such radiation was responsible for 70% excess breast cancer mortality.
ACS has just as abysmal a track record on prevention as NCI, according to Epstein, and it has been and remains the target of periodic attacks by leading scientists and public interest groups.
One attack in a 1994 press release by the Center for Science in the Public Interest stated, "A group of 24 scientists charged that the ACS was doing little to protect the public from cancer-causing chemicals in the environment and workplace. The scientists urged ACS to revamp its policies and to emphasize prevention in its lobbying and educational campaigns."
The scientists criticized ACS for requiring human evidence of carcinogenic effects before implementing regulation, saying that they had an unrealistically high action threshold. The scientists included: Harvard University Nobel Laureates Matthew Meselson and George Wald; former Occupational Safety and Health Director Eula Bingham; and past president of the Public Health Association, Anthony Robbins.
One major instance of ACS ignoring the science, according to Epstein, was in 1993 when they came out in support of the pesticide industry just before the airing of the PBS Frontline special, "In Our Children's Food." ACS released a memorandum in which it trivialized pesticides as a cause of childhood
cancers, and reassured the public that pesticide residues were safe, even for infants.
Possibly most shocking is the failure of the NCI and ACS to inform the public of the increasing incidence of childhood cancers, which has escalated to alarming rates, according to Epstein. The Cancer Prevention Coalition's 2003 report said that childhood cancers have increased by 32 percent between 1975 and 2000 and that cancer is one of the leading causes of death in children, second only to accidents.
Even more shocking, the NCI claims that "the causes of childhood cancer are largely unknown." This is diametrically opposed to substantial scientific evidence, according to Epstein, which shows that children are exposed to numerous avoidable carcinogens,
including everything from X-rays, prescription drugs, pesticides and contaminants in beauty products to petrochemical and industrial pollutants, radioactive pollutants in the air and drinking water, and pollutants from hazardous waste sites.
In 2000, the industry publication Cancer Letter had a commentary on ACS' behind-the-scenes creation of a legislative committee to gain major control of national cancer policy, according to Epstein. In the commentary, former executive president of the American Society of Clinical Oncologists Dr. John Durant shared his assessment of ACS behavior.
"It has always seemed to me that was an issue of control by the ACS over the cancer agenda," Durant said. "They are protecting their own fundraising capacity [from competition by survivor groups.]"
Conflicts of Interest
But emphasis on treatment looks likely to remain if, as Epstein shows, the ACS and NCI are in bed with those who profit from a treatment focus.
Approximately half of the members of the ACS board are doctors and scientists with close ties to the NCI, Epstein said. Many of the board members and their colleagues obtain funding from both the ACS and NCI, he said. Frank conflicts of interest are evident in many ACS priorities, according to Epstein, including the two major examples of mammography and cancer drugs.
"The ACS has close connections to the mammography industry," Epstein writes. "Five radiologists have served as ACS presidents, and in its every move, the ACS reflects the interests of the major manufacturers of mammogram machines and films ... In fact, if every woman followed the ACS and NCI mammography guidelines, the annual revenue to health care facilities would be a staggering $5 billion.
ACS promotion continues to lure women of all ages into mammography centers, leading them to believe that mammography is their best hope against breast cancer. A leading Massachusetts newspaper featured a photograph of two women in their twenties in an ACS advertisement that promised early detection results in a cure "nearly 100 percent of the time."
An ACS communications director responded .... "The ad isn't based on a study. When you make an advertisement, you just say what you can to get women in the door. You exaggerate a point. Mammography today is a lucrative [and] highly competitive business."
"The ACS exposes premenopausal women to radiation hazards from mammography with little or no evidence of benefits," Epstein said. "The ACS also fails to tell them that their breasts will change so much over time that the 'baseline' images have little or no future relevance."
The cancer drug industry is even more lucrative than mammography with annual sales over $12 billion. The intimate association between ACS and the pharmaceutical industry is illustrated, Epstein said, by the unbridled aggression which ACS directs at its critics.
"ACS maintains a Committee on Unproven Methods of Cancer Management, which periodically reviews unorthodox or alternative therapies," Epstein wrote. "This committee is comprised of volunteer health care professionals, carefully selected proponents of orthodox, expensive, and usually toxic drugs patented by major pharmaceutical companies, and opponents of alternative or unproven therapies that are generally cheap, and minimally toxic."
Periodically, the committee updates its statements on unproven methods, which are then widely disseminated to clinicians, cheerleader science writers, and the public. Once a clinician or oncologist becomes associated with unproven methods, he or she is blackmailed by the cancer establishment. Funding for the accused quack becomes inaccessible, followed by systematic harassment.
"The highly biased ACS witch-hunts against alternative practitioners are in striking contrast to its extravagant and uncritical endorsement of conventional toxic chemotherapy. This despite the absence of any objective evidence of improved survival rates or reduced mortality following chemotherapy for all but some relatively rare cancers."
The cancer industry's favor of pharmaceutical products is evidenced, Epstein said, "by the fact that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved approximately 40 patented drugs for cancer treatment, while it has yet to approve a single nonpatented alternative drug."
According to Epstein, "Dr. Samuel Broder, NCI director from 1989 to 1995, frankly admitted, in a 1998 Washington Post interview, that 'the NCI has become what amounts to a government pharmaceutical company.' Taxpayers have funded R & D and expensive clinical trials for over two-thirds of cancer drugs on the market. These drugs are given, with exclusive rights, to the industry, which sells them at inflated prices."
Epstein calls for change
NCI reform is two decades overdue, Epstein wrote, based in part on "The Stop Cancer Before it Starts Campaign: How to win the Losing War against Cancer," which is a 2003 report sponsored by eight leading cancer prevention experts and endorsed by over one hundred activists and citizen groups.
Numerous NCI reforms were proposed in 1992 at a Cancer Prevention Coalition press conference, a group of 68 leading cancer prevention and public health experts, past directors of federal agencies, and citizen activists across the nation. But prophetically, the press release concluded, "There is no likelihood that such reforms will be implemented without legislative action."
And the ACS has done no better, according to Epstein.
"The verdict is unassailable," Epstein said. "The ACS bears a major decades-long responsibility for losing the winnable war against cancer. Reforming the ACS is, in principle, relatively easy and directly achievable. Boycott the ACS. Instead, give your charitable contributions to public interest and environmental groups involved in cancer prevention. Such a boycott is well overdue and will send the only message this charity can no longer ignore."

A Tragic Decision That May Have Cost Steve Jobs His Life?
Posted By Dr. Mercola
October 09 2011
Steve Jobs died at 56 years old last week from complications of pancreatic cancer. Steve was the charismatic pioneer and innovative co-founder of Apple who transformed personal use of technology as well as entire industries with products such as the iPod, iPad, iPhone, Macintosh computer and the iTunes music store.
Steve was only 21 when he started Apple--officially formed on April Fool's Day, 1976. He was forced out in 1985 but returned 15 years ago and plucked Apple from near-bankruptcy, and in August of this year turned it into the most valuable company in the world passing Exxon.
Jeffery Kluger from Time Magazine had a great comment on the impact he made on the culture.
"But it's also fair to argue that Jobs was in some ways different from other captains of industry. Henry Ford, Thomas Edison and Bill Gates changed the world too - Gates more than all of them, perhaps, with his second chapter as the world's greatest philanthropist - and yet the garment rending and candle lighting that has followed Jobs' death suggests a passion that none of the others stir up.
Perhaps it's that Gates and the rest that invented what were essentially just products - remarkable things that transformed the way we lived, but merchandise all the same. Jobs' inventions got inside not just our lives but also our heads and - improbably - our hearts. That, of course, is the way it is with living things."
What Type of Person Was Steve Jobs?
Much has been said about Steve's brilliance in technology but there has not been much commentary about him as a person. The LA Times has an exceptional article that provides a great view into Steve's character. Larry Brilliant, an epidemiologist who was the director of Google's philanthropic arm Google.org, knew Steve Jobs for 35 years. He recalled first meeting Jobs when Jobs was 19, and he was in India working to eradicate smallpox.
"Jobs shielded himself and his family from the media, and his friends respected his privacy. But over the summer, Jobs told Brilliant that he would be "happy to have people talk about him," Jobs had dropped out of college and traveled to India to meet Brilliant's guru, Neem Karoli Baba. Baba died before Jobs reached the Kainchi Ashram with a Reed College friend –- and later, Apple's first employee -- Daniel Kottke.
"We met when he, like all of us, were spiritual seekers in India. It was that quality in him that people feel even though these are physical instruments, iPhones, iPods, iPads. People can feel that he was continuing that quest," Brilliant said. "He had this idea back in the 1970s, that cliché of giving power to the people. He really believed it. When he made the first Apple II, he thought he was giving power to the people by putting a computer on everyone's desk so they would not have to be dependent on the priesthood with mainframes.
This was giving power to the people in a very real way, not a theoretical way. What he has done is democratize access to information and access to beauty."
Because his private life was so little known, few outside of Jobs' inner circle experienced the caring side of Jobs, Brilliant said. In 2006 when Brilliant joined Google, both his wife and son were diagnosed with cancer. Brilliant was distraught. He says Jobs supported him by creating spreadsheets that ranked cancer surgeons based on a number of criteria including post-surgery infection rate, follow-up care and approval ratings.
"That's the part that people couldn't possibly know -- the love and the care that he put into everything he did. He just loved his family, Laurene (Powell) and the kids. He loved them more than anyone could articulate. And he loved Apple," Brilliant said.
"The defining character of Steve Jobs isn't his genius, it isn't his talent, it isn't his success. It's his love. That's why crowds came to see him. You could feel that. It sounds ridiculous to talk about love when you are making a gadget. But Steve loved his work, he loved the products he produced, and it was palpable. He communicated that love through bits of steel and plastic."
Classic Steve Jobs Quotes that Can Help You Live Your Life Better
Steve's premature passing was clearly a profound tragedy but we can use it to take to heart some of the wisdom he lived his life by and possibly improve our own life. Here are some of my favorite quotes from Steve that truly hit home as to some of the central reasons why we are on this planet. Remember he was born out of wedlock, put up for adoption, dropped out of college, fired from the company he founded, and still, he changed the world.
What's your excuse?
"Your time is limited, so don't waste it living someone else's life. Don't be trapped by dogma - which is living with the results of other people's thinking. Don't let the noise of others' opinions drown out your own inner voice. And most important, have the courage to follow your heart and intuition. They somehow already know what you truly want to become. Everything else is secondary."
"When I was 17, I read a quote that went something like: ‘If you live each day as if it was your last, someday you'll most certainly be right.' It made an impression on me, and since then, for the past 33 years, I have looked in the mirror every morning and asked myself: ‘If today were the last day of my life, would I want to do what I am about to do today?' And whenever the answer has been ‘No' for too many days in a row, I know I need to change something."
"Your work is going to fill a large part of your life, and the only way to be truly satisfied is to do what you believe is great work. And the only way to do great work is to love what you do. If you haven't found it yet, keep looking. Don't settle. As with all matters of the heart, you'll know when you find it. And, like any great relationship, it just gets better and better as the years roll on. So keep looking until you find it. Don't settle."
As a testimony to Steve's greatness, there were many creative memes that people came up with. If you cared for Steve or Apple you will likely appreciate viewing these.
What Did Steve Jobs Die From?
Pancreatic cancer is one of the faster spreading cancers; only about 4 percent of patients can expect to survive five years after their diagnosis. Each year, about 44,000 new cases are diagnosed in the U.S., and 37,000 people die of the disease. Although cancer of the pancreas has a terrible prognosis--half of all patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer die within 10 months of the diagnosis; half of those in whom it has metastasized die within six months--cancer in the pancreas is not necessarily a death sentence.
The pancreas contains two types of glands: exocrine glands that produce enzymes that break down fats and proteins, and endocrine glands that make hormones like insulin that regulate sugar in the blood. Jobs died of tumors originating in the endocrine glands, which are among the rarer forms of pancreatic cancer. Unlike pancreatic cancer, with neuroendocrine cancer, if you catch it early, there is a real potential for cure. His cancer was detected during an abdominal scan in October 2003, as Fortune magazine reported in a 2008 cover story.
It is widely believed in conventional medicine that surgery can lead to long-term survival. Despite the expert consensus on the value of surgery, Jobs did not elect it right away. He reportedly spent nine months on "alternative therapies," including what Fortune called "a special diet."
But when a scan showed that the original tumor had grown, he finally had it removed on July 31, 2004, at Stanford University Medical Clinic. He underwent an operation called a modified Whipple procedure, or a pancreatoduodenectomy, which removes the right side of the pancreas, the gallbladder, and parts of the stomach, bile duct, and small intestine, which was a strong suggestion that his cancer had spread beyond the pancreas.
Within five years, it was clear that Jobs was not cured. In April of 2009 Jobs flew to Switzerland and underwent an experimental procedure called peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT). It involves delivering radiation to tumor cells by attaching one of two radioactive isotopes to a drug that mimics somatostatin, the hormone that regulates the entire endocrine system and the secretion of other hormones.
This treatment apparently failed, as shortly after that he had a liver transplant at Methodist University Hospital in Memphis. This is likely because the cancer had spread from the pancreas to his liver. Liver transplants are a well-established treatment for tumors that originate in that organ BUT it is very uncommon to remove the liver for metastatic cancer.
This is not routinely done for two primary reasons. The first is that it in no way, shape, or form addresses the original cancer, and it can easily spread to the new liver. But more importantly, he had to be placed on large doses of drugs to suppress his immune system so he would not reject his new liver. Tragically this is the very system your body uses to help control cancers. The liver has enormous regenerative capacity, and if they only removed the portion of his liver that contained the malignant cells, he would not have to take those dangerous anti-rejection drugs.
Conventional cancer experts disagree with the approach that was taken for Steve.
"In contrast, with a liver transplant "the overall costs and complications ... override its benefits, especially when compared with partial [removal of the liver]." Indeed, liver transplants for metastatic cancer "have been largely abandoned," says Columbia's Chabot, because the immune-suppressing, anti-rejection drugs "lead to such a high recurrence rate.
Interestingly, it appears Steve was not given any chemotherapy or radiation treatments after his liver transplant, which undoubtedly contributed to his living over seven years after his surgery.
Was there Another Option for Steve's Cancer?
I am certainly not an expert in the treatment of cancer but it seems that Steve got the best cancer care possible. He avoided all treatments for nine months before electing to have a surgical intervention that frequently is curative for this type of cancer. It appears he also was able to avoid chemotherapy and radiation. Of course, the question remains on how he got the original cancer. It is impossible to know for sure as there are so many variables.
However, the biggest issue may have been the decision to have a liver transplant and go on the anti-rejection
drugs. Conventional oncologists are stating that was, perhaps, a mistake.
I thought it would be helpful to interview an expert in the natural treatment of cancer on this so I contacted Dr. Nicholas Gonzalez, who is widely known for his work with pancreatic cancer. I previously interviewed Dr. Gonzalez about his remarkable cancer program, in which he discussed the details of his history and the therapeutic approaches he employs-with a rate of success that is entirely unheard of in conventional medicine, I might add.
As explained in our first interview, Dr. Gonzalez has been involved in the natural treatment of cancer for over 25 years, and offers really innovative therapies for this devastating disease. He's known internationally for his expertise on pancreatic cancer specifically, but his therapies have wider applications and can be applied to all forms of cancer.
Many of his pancreatic cancer patients are still alive and well today, having survived up to 20 years... In conventional medicine, this is simply unheard of. Using the best conventional therapies we have, the typical survival rate for a pancreatic cancer patient is about 12-18 months.
To summarize Dr. Gonzalez' program, it consists of three basic components:
Individualized diet based on nutritional (metabolic) typing
Individualized supplement program, which includes vitamins, minerals, trace elements, and pancreatic enzymes
Detoxification, which includes coffee enemas and colon cleanses
To review the details of his program, please see our previous interview.
Steve Jobs, Another Victim of Pancreatic Cancer
There are two basic types of pancreatic cancer. The most aggressive form is adenocarcinoma, which develops in the cells that produce pancreatic enzymes (these enzymes help digest proteins, fats, and carbohydrates and eliminate toxins from your body).
"About 95 percent of pancreatic cancers develop in the enzyme-producing cells that synthesize the main digestive enzymes of the intestinal tract," Dr. Gonzalez explains. "About five percent are developed in the endocrine component of the pancreas. The pancreas not only produces enzymes, but also produces hormones like insulin and glucagon. Cancer can develop in the insulin or other hormone-producing cells, but it's much less common. They tend to be a little less aggressive – the average survival for carcinoma of the enzyme-producing cells is probably three to six months."
Steve Jobs had this latter version of pancreatic cancer; islet cell carcinoma, the technical term for cancer of the hormone producing cells of the pancreas.
"He didn't have the most aggressive form," Dr. Gonzalez says. "... [H]e's had it for many years. He had a liver transplant in Memphis about two years ago. Again, he was very secretive about what was going on... [I]t must have meant he had a metastasis in the liver. First, he had to be treated with immunosuppressants. Whenever you have a transplanted organ, your body will tend to reject it, so you have to suppress your immune system. That's not good when you have a history of cancer, because immunosuppression can stimulate cancer growth since you're suppressing your own immune ability to fight cancer."
It appears Steve Jobs did everything he could, conventionally and alternatively to stay alive. As Dr. Gonzalez states, money certainly wasn't a limiting factor in his treatment.
"A procedure like that can run several hundred thousand dollars, at least. So my assumption, having treated pancreatic cancer for over two decades, he probably had metastasis in the liver, and it was a somewhat desperate attempt to try to keep it under control, although it would be ultimately futile. There's always the possibility of some kind of liver failure for reasons other than cancer that might have led him to a liver transplant, such as a medication reaction, hepatitis C from transfusion or something. But again, the reasons have never been publicly released, so we don't know. But most likely, he had metastasis in the liver."
Many Cancer Patients Shun Natural Cancer Treatment Options
According to Dr. Gonzalez, Jobs was seeing an acupuncturist who was very anxious for him to contact Dr. Gonzalez for advice. Dr. Gonzalez has been successfully treating cancer patients for over two decades.
"One of my great patients is a fellow from Michigan who had islet cell carcinoma that, at the time of diagnosis in 1995, had already metastasized to his liver. He went to the Mayo clinic, where everything was confirmed; he had CAT scans and biopsies... To the Mayo clinic's credit... if they know that a therapy isn't going to be useful, they don't promote it, whereas a lot of oncologists will promote therapies that are worthless.
The Mayo clinic told him chemo wouldn't do anything for him... There was really nothing they could do. He started with me in 1995, shortly after his diagnosis. He's alive and well now, 16 years later. CAT scans beginning around 2000 showed total resolution of his big tumors. He had a huge tumor in the pancreas -- it must have been around 6 centimeters. And then he had a big tumor, right under the liver. All these are gone."
Celebrity Patients and 'Star' Oncologists
Jobs is not the only celebrity who did everything he could through the conventional paradigm, which tragically has an abysmal success rate.
"Michael Landon actually did consult with me," Dr. Gonzalez says, "but he never did the therapy. His press agent, Harry Flynn, became a very good friend. Harry and I remain friends to this day, and this goes back to 20 years ago. As soon as a successful celebrity gets cancer, the conventional predators come out of the woodwork-and they say that alternative doctors are sitting there like predators, trying to lure unsuspecting cancer patients into their lairs. You know, I've been in the alternative world for a long time, and I've come out of this very conventional research. But I don't see a whole of that in the alternative world.
What I do see is conventional doctors doing exactly what they criticize in alternative doctors. Landon was treated by an "eminent oncologist" from Cedars-Sinai, who held a press conference. The first thing conventional doctors do when they get a celebrity is to hold a press conference. To me it's almost like narcissism, just to show how important they are with all these celebrities coming to them. This is even if they know they can't do anything. He gave Landon an experimental chemo, but he was dead in three months."
As Dr. Gonzalez points out, conventional doctors can fail miserably and still be considered heroes. Alternative doctors, even the most successful ones, are still looked upon with great suspicion if not disdain.
Upon Landon's death, his oncologist held another press conference, and Landon's widow was impressed with how "hard" his doctor had worked to treat her dying husband.
"You see, when a conventional oncologist loses a celebrity patient, they portray him as a hero fighting this terrible disease against the enormous odds; working late into the night trying to keep the celebrity alive," Dr. Gonzalez says. "But when an alternative practitioner loses a patient, they consider him a sleazy quack getting money from unsuspecting cancer victims.
... The same thing was true, more recently, with Patrick Swayze. He had a very aggressive pancreatic cancer. Stanford oncologists doing his treatment held press conferences routinely... filled with this kind of joyful optimism that "they're going to help." He was gone in 18 months. Friends of his are actually patients of mine, but he absolutely had no interest in alternative medicine. He was very conventional – used "the best doctors" from Stanford."
Misplaced Blame-The Case of Steve McQueen and Dr. Kelley
Dr. Gonzalez' mentor, Dr. Kelley (who developed the cancer program Dr. Gonzalez now uses), treated Steve McQueen. McQueen ultimately died, although he lasted almost a year under Dr. Kelley's care.
"He was terminal when he came to Dr. Kelley," Dr. Gonzalez says. "He had failed radiation, failed immunotherapy. He had been misdiagnosed for a year. The reason he ended up with Stage 4 mesothelioma is because he was misdiagnosed by his fancy conventional doctors in Southern California.
Then they gave him radiation – there's not a study in the history of the world showing that radiation helps in mesothelioma; they gave it anyway. Then they gave him immunotherapy. There's not a study in the history of the world saying that immunotherapy helps in mesothelioma. They did it anyway. Then he was dying and he went to see Kelley. He died, and Kelley got all the blame-not the doctors who misdiagnosed him! In fact when you read the newspaper articles, there are still articles about how Dr. Kelley killed McQueen.
No, cancer killed McQueen.
You see, an oncologist at Sloan-Kettering can do a bone marrow transplant on celebrity patients. They die, and he's written up like a hero... Kelley tries to help after conventional doctors failed miserably and misdiagnosed him, and McQueen lived longer than he should. (He was a half-compliant patient – he continued to smoke, drink, and eat ice cream.) I told Kelley when I first met him, "The biggest mistake you've made with McQueen is you took him as a patient. You should have told him to hit the trail."
Dr. Kelley is now dead. But 30 years later, he still gets blamed for McQueen's death. About two or three years ago, there was an Op-Ed piece in the Wall Street Journal attacking unconventional cancer therapy. They talked about McQueen, and how Kelley killed him. ... Conventional oncologists lose patients every day, and no one says they're murdering anybody. Instead they're considered heroes for trying so hard."
As Dr. Gonzalez says, it's not even a double standard; it's like being in an alternative Universe. If you're a conventional oncologist, you can do no wrong, you're lauded as a hero despite your failures, and you make a lot of money making them. Meanwhile, alternative practitioners may succeed again and again, and still be considered dangerous quacks. This is a mindset that has absolutely nothing to do with scientific validity, objectivity, or evaluation of data. It really falls into a category more reminiscent of religious fervor.
Conventional Medicine as a Religion
So, how did we get to this point? Why does this situation exist when it's so illogical?
"Conventional academic medicine is the last religion left in America," Dr. Gonzalez says.
"So the way you have to look at medicine is not as a scientific profession, but rather a religious profession...
It has its irrational beliefs. It has its own special language. It has its tools, it has its rituals. ... The fact that they don't make us better is ignored. Landon died, Patrick Swayze died, Linda McCartney died; I could list 20 celebrities who are dead because they went the conventional route. Why didn't they do my therapy?
Because I don't have a temple. I don't even own a white coat... Michael Landon picked that up right away. In fact, his press agent, Harry Flynn, wanted him to come and see me... [But] one of Landon's comments about me was that I "wasn't fancy enough." So he went to the priesthood. He went to Cedars-Sinai."
Meanwhile, Dr. Gonzalez has patients who were diagnosed with pancreatic cancer at the same time as Michael Landon, who are still alive today. His oldest survivor began the program in 1988.
"We have multiple patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer who have done well," Dr. Gonzalez says. "It's interesting: I do have very world-renowned celebrities as patients. But no one knows who they are; no one knows they have cancer. The reason for that is because they didn't die, and we don't hold press conferences. They're doing their program and doing well with their lives.
We tell our patients: don't make cancer your life. Move on with your life. So they're back acting in movies, doing talk shows and that kind of stuff. No one knows they even had cancer. And that's fine with me. Some of them keep it secret because of the career thing, and they don't want the publicity. I understand that. So my successful patients who are celebrities, nobody knows who they are because they got well and they're just doing their job."
Now, it's important to stress that this is not a conspiracy.
The physicians who promote the conventional approach do so because they truly believe it's the right thing to do; the only thing that has any chance of working. Healing cancer with foods and coffee enemas seems ludicrous when compared to the most advanced drug cocktails. If the most potent toxins can't kill the cancer, how in the world could you get rid of the cancer with nutrients? They've bought the conventional paradigm hook line and sinker, and they promote it not just for their patients, but for themselves and their families as well. And they suffer the same consequences as their patients.
"They grow up with the bias that drugs are the way to go. It's how they're trained; it's imprinted in their brain in medical school. It's like mind control – it's what they believe. They just can't believe anything else. They go to their graves believing it – often to their discredit, unfortunately.
Many conventional physicians are also in just as poor a health as their patients. However, there are signs that the tide is slowly about to shift.
"We get calls from doctors now, asking us about nutrition and what supplements they should take," Dr. Gonzalez says. "There's been a big change in the last few years. Fifteen years ago it didn't happen, and now it's starting to happen."
For More Information
For more information about Dr. Gonzalez and his practice, see www.dr-gonzalez.com.
He's also working on a series of books, two of which have already been published and received five-star reviews: The Trophoblast and the Origins of Cancer, and One Man Alone: An Investigation of Nutrition, Cancer, and William Donald Kelley. Three others are in the works, one of which will contain 100 of Dr. Gonzalez' case reports of patients with advanced cancer who successfully recovered on his program.
Thankfully, Dr. Gonzalez is still on the front lines and actively engaged in helping people by coaching them with natural alternatives instead of toxic drugs and radiation. I would personally not hesitate to recommend him to a family member or a friend diagnosed with cancer. His office is in Manhattan, where he can be reached at (212) 213-3337. His website, www.dr-gonzalez.com also contains information on how to become a patient, and everything a potential patient needs to know.
Another source for more information about alternative cancer treatments in general is Suzanne Somers' book, Knockout. She reviews Dr. Gonzalez' work in one chapter, and Dr. Gonzalez personally recommends the book as a well-researched resource for anyone interested in getting more information.
"For cancer, specifically, I think Suzanne did a good job," Dr. Gonzalez says. "She really worked hard to put together resources that she thought legitimate and would be helpful for patients... So that's a good place to start in terms of general recommendations."
Your Immune System Can Keep Cancer Dormant
Posted By Dr. Mercola
December 13 2007
New research has shown for the first time that the human immune system can stop the growth of a cancerous tumor without actually killing it. These results help explain why some tumors suddenly stop growing and go into a long period of dormancy.
The study‘s authors call this cancer-suppressing state “equilibrium.” During equilibrium, the immune system decreases the cancer‘s ability to grow, and kills some cancerous cells, although not enough to eliminate or shrink the tumor.
Researchers injected mice with small doses of a chemical carcinogen and observed those who developed small, stable masses at the site of the injections. When certain components of the animals‘ immune systems were disabled, the growths became full-blown cancers. This suggests that the immune system had been holding the tumors in check.
"We may one day be able to use immunotherapy to artificially induce equilibrium and convert cancer into a chronic but controllable disease," suggests co-author Mark J. Smyth, Ph.D., professor of the Cancer Immunology Program at the Peter McCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne, Australia.
"Proper immune function is now appreciated as another important factor in preventing the development of some cancers. Further research and clinical validation of this process may also turn established cancers into a chronic condition, similar to other serious diseases that are controlled long-term by taking a medicine," he added.
According to a scientific theory called cancer immuno-surveillance, your immune system can discern malignant cells, and attack tumors with the same weapons it uses to eliminate invading microorganisms. Current immunotherapy efforts use pharmaceutical agents to increase the chances that the immune system will recognize and attack tumor cells.
The cancer immuno-surveillance theory however fell out of favour, and in 2001 a new model known as cancer immuno-editing was established. The cancer immuno-editing theory suggests that conflict between cancers and the immune system takes place naturally, but with three different potential outcomes.
Your immune system can eliminate cancer, destroying it completely
Your immune system can form a balance with cancer, by checking its growth but not destroying it
The cancer can escape from your immune system, and become more malignant
Dr. Mercola's Comments:
After my recent interview with Dr. David Holt about the concepts inherent in German New Medicine, this article shows how sometimes scientists can be oh-so-close, yet still so far off the mark.
First of all, the statement, "We may one day be able to use immunotherapy to artificially induce equilibrium and convert cancer into a chronic but controllable disease," is a sad testament to the fundamental difference between conventional medicine and real healing.
What Vital Components are Conventional Cancer Researchers Missing?
According to Dr. Geerd Hamer, who re-discovered the natural laws of what he now calls the German New Medicine, cancer is NOT a disease state, but rather a phase during your physical, mental and emotional healing process.
WHOA! That’s a radical statement!
Hope you were sitting down when you read that because I nearly fell out of my chair when I first heard it, because I realized the profound implications of this concept.
But please don’t let the shock value lead you to dismiss it before looking into it further, as there’s simply not enough space for me to do it justice in this article.
But what Hamer discovered is that cancer (as well as ALL other disease) is the temporary outgrowth of a serious emotional trauma – your body’s brilliant way of helping you resolve the issue – and once you’ve reached a resolution in your psyche (your mind), your brain directs your body to re-establish its original balance, i.e. go in and remove the cell growths it created in defense to the trauma.
Certain breast cancers, for example, can occur after traumatic events related to the potential, or actual loss of a child. Your body responds to the acute emotional crisis by increasing cell proliferation in your milk ducts, because your biological solution to saving your child’s life is to make sure you have plenty of milk to nurse your child back to health, and in so doing resolve the emotional crisis, which is “my child is hurt, or dying.”
Depending on the emotional trauma, different parts of your brain is affected, which in turn determines which part of your body may start proliferating cells (conventional medicine calls this cancer), and it also determines whether your tumor is created during the active stage of your emotional crisis, or if it’s created during the healing phase, in response to lesions or cell necrosis.
This explains how tumors go into remission, and/or disappear completely.
The most tragic part of standard cancer treatment is that when you receive the shocking news that you now have cancer and may die, your body re-enters a state of shock, often leading to additional cancers. Conventional medicine calls this metastasis – that your cancer is spreading. According to German New Medicine, you were healing, but the “death-fright shock” launched another set of tumors. Between the intense fear created by being diagnosed with cancer, and the deadly cancer treatments offered, death is unfortunately more common than healing.
Dr. Hamer has more than 40,000 case studies backing up his new science, and his cancer cure rate is over 95 percent. “Cure” being defined by conventional medicine as still being alive five years after the onset of cancer.
Compare that to conventional chemotherapy, which comes in at a dismal 2.5 percent cure rate, and you may grasp the vital implications of this information.
Consider also the fact that Dr. Hamer, as a reward by his conventional peers for his incredible success rates, has served time in jail for “inciting the public” and refusing to disavow his medical beliefs, and is currently in exile, seeking asylum from persecution.
Does That Mean It’s All in Your Head?
Certainly not. But it does mean that your psyche/mind and body are intricately connected, and that you cannot separate the two without dire consequences.
However, maintaining a strong healthy immune system is a mandatory step in maintaining robust health and creating an environment where your body has everything it needs to heal at its disposal.
I am a firm believer in that you can virtually eliminate your cancer risk, and radically improve your chances of full recovery from cancer if you currently have it, by following the following all-natural strategies to optimize your health and innate regenerative power.
And, by refocusing on the importance that your mental and emotional state has on your physical body, and learning to resolve your emotional conflicts rather than deaden them with toxic mind-numbing antidepressant drugs (see # 11 below), your chances of leading a long, healthy life seems almost inevitable.
True Cancer Prevention – Giving Your Body a Fighting Chance to Heal
These are my 12 risk reduction strategies that can optimize your health and aid in your natural self-healing process.
Reduce your processed food, sugar and grain carbohydrate intake Yes, this is even true for whole unprocessed organic grains as they tend to rapidly break down and drive your insulin and leptin levels up, which is the last thing you need to have happening if you are seeking to resolve a cancer.
Control your fasting insulin and leptin levels: This is the end result, and can be easily monitored with the use of simple and relatively inexpensive blood tests.
Normalize your ratio of omega-3 to omega-6 fats by taking a high-quality krill oil or fish oil and reducing your intake of most processed vegetable oils.
Get regular exercise. One of the primary reasons exercise works is that it drives your insulin levels down. Controlling insulin levels is one of the most powerful ways to reduce your cancer risks.
Normalize your vitamin D levels and vitamin A levels by getting plenty of sunlight exposure and consider careful supplementation when this is not possible. If you take oral vitamin D and have a cancer it would be very prudent to monitor your vitamin D blood levels regularly.
Get a good night's sleep.
Eat according to your nutritional type. The potent anti-cancer effects of this principle are very much underappreciated. When we treat cancer patients in our clinic this is one of the most powerful anti-cancer strategies we have.
Reduce your exposure to environmental toxins like pesticides, household chemical cleaners, synthetic air fresheners and air pollution.
Limit your exposure and provide protection for yourself from information carrying radio waves produced by cell phone towers, base stations, phones and WiFi stations.
Avoid frying or charbroiling your food. Boil, poach or steam your foods instead .
Have a tool to permanently reprogram the neurological short-circuiting that can activate cancer genes. Even the CDC states that 85 percent of disease is caused by emotions. It is likely that this factor may be more important than all the other physical ones listed here, so make sure this is addressed. Energy psychology seems to be one of the best approaches and my particular favorite tool, as you may know, is the Emotional Freedom Technique. German New Medicine is another powerful tool.
Use broccoli sprouts as an adjunct to everything above unless you simply do not like broccoli.