cance rf re e no w.

o rg

http://www.cancerfreeno w.o rg/chemo therapy-destro ys-bo th-yo u-and-yo ur-cancer/

Chemotherapy Destroys Both You And Your Cancer!

In my personal research on the options of chemotherapy I came across some shocking research that clearly shows that the traditional medical approach destroys both the cancer and the cancer patient! Ralph W. Moss, author, T he Cancer Industry you said: If cancer specialists were to admit publicly that chemotherapy is of limited usef ulness and is of ten dangerous, the public might demand a radical change in directionpossibly toward unorthodox and nontoxic methods, and toward cancer prevention. T he use of chemotherapy is even advocated by those members of the establishment who realize how inef f ective and dangerous it can be. Af ter several sessions of radiation and chemotherapy, the patient is of ten lef t so weak, has lost their appetite and their immune system has been greatly suppressed exposing one to mass inf ections. T hey may survive the chemotherapy, but literally die f rom the side-ef f ects. Cancer is destroyed but the Patient is half dead! In f act, such patients in dire condition have had PET scans indicating that the cancer tumors is gone or signif icantly reduced af ter all the chemotherapy, surgery, etc., but the patient is dead or very close to it. Imagine now how ridiculous it sounds when an oncologist says that they cured the cancer, but the patient died f rom other complications. T he so-called success rate of traditional medicine in treating cancer is very low, as low as 2% or 3% but when they claim its better than that its of ten because when a cancer patient dies instead of putting died f rom cancer on the Medical Certif icate, of ten the medical community puts as cause of death, liver malf unction, massive inf ection, heart attack, and so on. T hese causes of death were directly related to the cancer treatment they received in many cases! So of ten the chemotherapy leaves the patient in a state of no return. T heir bodies are so devastated by the side-ef f ects of the treatments that there is not much lef t to do, but palliative care! As Gary Null and James Feast write, (Af ter chemotherapy,) the hope is the cancer is going to be totally dead and you are only half dead and recover. Well in many cases they are not totally dead, but in all honesty they are what you might call half dead or dying and/or the quality of their lif e af terwards is a very lousy and painf ul. Did you know that one of the worlds leading nuclear medical scientist, John Gof man M.D.,Ph.D. f ound that past exposure to ionizing radiation, primarily medical x-rays (eg mammograms), is responsible f or about 75 percent of the breast-cancer problem today? And did you know that the mortality rate f or breast cancer in women over 55 was about 20% higher in 1995 than in 1970 (so much f or mammograms)? (Irwin D. Bross, Ph.D.) NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE

According to the New England Journal of Medicine, chemotherapy is Not Intended to Cure You. Maybe you like millions of others believe that chemotherapy is the best lif e-saving cancer treatment available, at least that is what most doctors would have us believebut startling new research shows just the opposite. I want to inf orm you of an article by the well-known news agency Reuters that reported on a study headed by Dr. Deborah Schrag of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and published in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine. Reuters reported: According to the study, 75% of people with advanced cancer believe going through chemotherapy might cure them, even though their doctors are well aware that the odds are it will do no such thing. In the study, 69% of patients with terminal lung cancer and 81% of patients with f atal colorectal cancer did not understand that the dangers of chemotherapy they were receiving was not at all likely to eliminate their tumors. According to Dr. Schrag, this is the result of an extreme communication breakdown. Its hard to talk to people and tell them we cant cure your cancer, Schrag admitted, but the result is that patients are opting into a very harsh treatment plan that comes with seriously detrimental side-ef f ects f or all the wrong reasons. Chemotherapy: Unbelievable Risks and Lousy Track Record When a person is f aced with lif e or death they are very vulnerable. When you f irst hear the terrible news f rom your doctor when he says: You have cancer, those words ring in your head f or days to come and you are now overcome with f ear. What can the doctor of f er you? He has nothing else to of f er you, but chemotherapy, radiation and surgery. He is not allowed to of f er any natural or complimentary programs or remedies! And on top of that he will probably put so much f ear into you by saying things like If you dont immediately start chemotherapy you only have a f ew months to live! No wonder so many cancer patients are f orced into accepting the grueling, debilitating, and potentially permanent side-ef f ects of chemotherapy because we all want to stay alive. In 2004, three oncologists f rom Australia authored a paper on the benef its conf erred by chemotherapy treatment f or adults with the most common kinds of cancer. Even though the authors deliberately overestimated the benef its of chemotherapy whenever the data was uncertain, they ultimately concluded that the dangers of chemotherapy contributes just over 2% to improved survival rates f or cancer patients. Even more shocking despite its reputation as the gold-standard in cancer treatment, chemotherapy has an average 5-year survival success rate of just over 2% f or all cancers, according to a study published in the journal Clinical Oncology. In f act, they said 2% should be regarded as chemos upper limit of ef f ectiveness. American Cancer Society Has Reckless, Perhaps Criminal, Record on Cancer Prevention A lot of people put their f aith in the American Cancer Society (ACS) and generously participate in its highly publicized National Breast Cancer Awareness Month campaign each year, which includes the nationwide promotion of mammography screening. But has mammograms reduced breast cancer? In a report titled AMERICAN CANCER SOCIET Y More Interested In Accumulating Wealth Than Saving Lives, Dr. Samuel S. Epstein, chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition, plainly lays to bare the many conf licts of interest that hamper the ef f ectiveness of this organization. For example, the ACS has close f inancial ties to both makers of mammography equipment and cancer drugs. But that is just the beginning. Other conf licts of interest include ties to, and f inancial support f rom,

the pesticide-, petrochemical-, biotech-, cosmetics-, and junk f ood industriesthe very industries whose products are the primary contributors to cancer! Now the cold hard f acts are that now we know that these conf licts of interest are there, it becomes more apparent why the ACS never addresses the environmental components of cancer, and why inf ormation about avoidable toxic exposures are so conspicuously absent f rom their National Breast Cancer Awareness campaigns. T he ACS, along with the National Cancer Institute, virtually exclusively f ocus on cancer research as well as the chemical treatment of cancer. However, preventive strategies, such as avoiding chemical exposures, proper diet and lif estyle changes receive almost no consideration at all. Modern-Day Treatments Often Add More Pain and Suffering to Cancer Patients Because most people are desperate to live, they are willing to do just about anything to get better. In addition, doctors will with one sweeping statement denounce all natural therapies and clinics as inef f ective quackery. Drugs, surgery and radiation are the primary recommendations of f ered by conventional physicians to treat cancer. T his includes taking outrageously expensive and dangerous medications that of f er little, if any, benef it. Take f or example, Avastin, this is a drug used f or metastatic breast cancer, which costs about $8,000 a month and is one of the best-selling cancer drugs in the world, but did you know that it is now being phased out in the U.S. due to lack of ef f ectiveness and dangerous side-ef f ects. When you are diagnosed with cancer, you are suddenly worth $300,000.00 to the cancer industry. Another study, T he National Confidential Enquiry into Patient Outcome and Death (NCEPOD), f ound that more than 4 in 10 patients (40%) who received chemotherapy toward the end of lif e experienced potentially f atal ef f ects. And, af ter reviewing data f rom over 600 cancer patients who died within 30 days of receiving treatment, it was f ound that chemotherapy hastened or caused death in 27 percent of those cases. Former chemotherapy patient Anne explains in Michio Kushis and Alex Jacks book, The Cancer Prevention Diet: My mind rebelled at the thought of another six months of that poison. On several occasions, the doctor couldnt perf orm chemotherapy treatments on me because my white blood cell count was dangerously low. I promised my body I would not undergo any f urther chemotherapy treatments. Maybe you have known people like Anne who have suf f ered through months of of ten debilitating chemotherapy. Prof essor Null writes in his Complete Encyclopedia of Natural Healing, T he mainstream medical establishment of ten prescribes mastectomy, radiation and chemotherapy to treat cancer, an approach that has been described as a slash-and-burn strategy. In Get Healthy Now, Prof essor Null describes one womans experience with mainstream medicines approach to breast cancer treatment: T hree days later, she had her breast lopped of f . T hat was f ollowed up with lots of chemotherapy. Her hair f ell out and she vomited 24 hours a day. She couldnt keep any f ood down. T hen, they did radiation and her skin burnt up and two of her ribs broke. He concludes, Most people dont know how dangerous radiation is. I had seen enough. I wouldnt touch any of that medicine with a 10f oot pole. T he surgical removal of the cancerous body part also brings with it many psychological ef f ects of having a body part no longer there. Chemotherapy may be unnecessary in the first place Chemotherapy is ef f ective in only 2 to 4% of cancers-Hodgkins disease, Acute Lymphocytic Leukemia

(ALL, childhood leukemia), Testicular cancer, and Choriocarcinoma? Ralph Moss interview 1995 http://www.livelinks.com/sumeria/canc/rmoss.html Dr. Atkins says in Burton Goldbergs Alternative Medicine, Only in situations in which chemotherapy is proven to be ef f ective and curative would I recommend it. In general, this might be testicular cancer. Many people also think that surgery can sometimes do more harm than good: Biopsy, f or example, may in f act spread cancer cells, according to Prof essor Null. Dr. Lloyd Jenkins of the BUDWIG CENT ER told me of a man in his f if ties that had a small tumor in the base of his neck. He went f or a biopsy as recommended by his doctor. Within a short time that small tumor became the size of a grapef ruit on the side of his neck. T he cancer has spread into his lymphatic system and within two months he was dead! If you do your homework you will see that the medical community admits that there is basically no 100% accurate cancer test. It simply does not exist yet. However, a biopsy is very accurate, theref ore this is of ten recommended. However, the price one pays to determine the cancer is a very high price to pay, it may be paying with ones very lif e! Furthermore, the most extreme example of unnecessary cancer therapy treatment f or f alse positive cancer diagnoses is more common than wed like to believe, according to Critical Condition authors Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele. How many people who got better af ter having received chemotherapy never really had cancer in the f irst place? What doctors say about Chemo T herapy? Something that still baf f les me is when I read reports like that of what Scientists based at McGill Cancer Centre who sent a questionnaire to 118 lung cancer doctors to determine what degree of f aith these practicing cancer physicians placed in the therapies they administered. Imagine this, 79 doctors responded of which 64 would not consent to be in any trial containing Cisplatin one of the common chemotherapy drugs they were testing (currently achieving worldwide sales of about $110,000,000 a year) and 58 of the 79 f ound that all the trials in question were unacceptable due to the inef f ectiveness of chemotherapy and its unacceptably high degree of toxicity. You see the doctors will use words like ef f ective treatment, which is a very vague term. Of ten it simply means it will reduce tumors. T he tumor is not your real problem. In f act, your body in its wisdom encapsulates the cancer cells in an envelope (tumor) until your immune system can ef f ectively deal with the cancer cells. T he only real way to cure cancer is to remove the cause of the cancer in the f irst place by destroying the cancer virus/f ungus in the f irst place. If you read the thousands of studies done by Dr. Moss as part of his research you will notice that there is not one single positive study documenting the claim the chemotherapy can cure cancer and improve your lif e! Here is the really sad part of this is that once a person has suf f ered through the hair loss, vomiting, pain, lif e-threatening mouth sores, destruction of the intestinal lining and immune system, etc., they of ten are in such a horrible state they can no longer respond to any other natural alternative cancer therapy. T hey may have reached the point of no return. T he doctors themselves are very much aware the chemotherapy drugs are highly toxic substances that are related to the mustard gas used in World War 1. Many Doctors would not choose Chemotherapy Many doctors have honestly stated that they themselves would not accept chemotherapy f or themselves and their loved ones! Dr. John Bailar is the chief of epidemiology at McGill University in Montreal and was f ormerly the editor of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute. In 1986 the New England Journal of Medicine published an

article by Dr. Bailer and Dr. Elaine Smith, a colleague f rom the University of Iowa. Bailer and Smith wrote: Some 35 years of intense and growing ef f orts to improve the treatment of cancer have not had much overall ef f ect on the most f undamental measure of clinical outcome death. T he ef f ort to control cancer has f ailed so f ar to obtain its objectives. By shrinking tumors, chemotherapy encourages stronger cancer cells to grow and multiply and become chemo resistant. T hen there are the new cancers caused by chemotherapy, or secondary cancers. You can f ind this inf ormation quite easily at the National Cancer Institute. Did you know that Dr. John Cairns, a prof essor of microbiology at Harvard, published his view in Scientif ic American in 1985, that basically the war on cancer was a f ailure and that chemotherapy was not getting very f ar with the vast majority of cancers. I read that as f ar back as 1975, Nobel Laureate James Watson of DNA f ame was quoted in the New York Times saying that the American public had been sold a nasty bill of goods about cancer. My question is this; why are the oncologists still pushing chemotherapy on the population? Well, Dr. Moss f eels that theres a tremendous conf lict going on in the minds of honest, sensitive, caring oncologists. T heyre in a very dif f icult position because theyve been trained to give these drugs. And, theyve devoted many years to reaching a very high-level of expertise in the knowledge of poisonous, deadly compounds. T heyre really in a bind because they went into oncology to help the cancer patient, yet the tools theyve been given dont work. And, they see what happens to physicians who step out of line and treat cancer with alternative means. T hey know about the armed raids (police showing up and hand cuf f ing doctors), loss of licensure, prof essional smearing and ostracism are some of the consequences. Well like so many things in our sick world today, its all about the money!! I read once that af ter the energy industry (oil, gas, wind, solar, electricity, etc) cancer is the next biggest industry. Did you know that cancer treatment is close to $100 billion annually ($100,000,000,000). T he Bristol Myers company owns patents on twelve of the nearly f orty FDA-approved chemotherapeutic drugs. T he president, past president, chairman of the board, and a couple of the directors of Bristol Myers all hold positions on the board at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. Dr. Moss book details the f ailures (and very f ew successes) f or chemotherapy with more than f if ty types of cancer, includes a complete description of the major chemotherapy drugs, and has a section about questions to ask your doctor. Please do not take my word f or it, all of Dr. Moss books and Cancer Chronicles newsletters are available f rom Equinox Press, 1-800-929-WELL or 718-636-4433 Where is the Science? We pride ourselves in America and Europe f or being technologically advanced and claiming it to be rooted in a f oundation of good science. Not so when it comes to medicine! Imagine the Of f ice of Technological Assessments paper states that f ewer than 20% of all medical procedures have been tested, and that of those tested, half were tested badly. Dr. Dan Harper, reported in an unpublished cohort study in which it was revealed that only 9% of oncologists took chemotherapy f or their cancers. Listen to this comment: as a chemist trained to interpret data, it is incomprehensible to me that physicians can ignore the clear evidence that chemotherapy does much, much more harm than good. Alan C Nixon, PhD, f ormer president of the American Chemical Society.

Walter Last, writing in T he Ecologist, reported recently: Af ter analysing cancer survival statistics f or several decades, Dr. Hardin Jones, Prof essor at the University of Calif ornia, concluded patients are as well, or better of f untreated. Jones disturbing assessment has never been ref uted. Prof essor Charles Mathe declared: If I contracted cancer, I would never go to a standard cancer treatment centre. Cancer victims who live f ar f rom such centres have a chance. T he sad thing is most cancer victims do the standard medical therapies and then when they see that it does not work they look f or Clinics that of f er natural therapies. However, they are of ten so ravaged by the side-ef f ects of chemo that now even the natural approaches will no longer work. Many medical oncologists recommend chemotherapy f or virtually any tumor, with a hopef ulness undiscouraged by almost invariable f ailure, Albert Braverman MD 1991 Lancet 1991 337 p901 Medical Oncology in the 90s. Most cancer patients in this country die of chemotherapy. Chemotherapy does not eliminate breast, colon, or lung cancers. T his f act has been documented f or over a decade, yet doctors still use chemotherapy f or these tumors, Allen Levin, MD UCSF T he Healing of Cancer. Despite widespread use of chemotherapies, breast cancer mortality has not changed in the last 70 years, T homas Dao, MD NEJM Mar 1975 292 p 707. Now here is shocking inf ormation to digestIrwin Bross, a biostatistician f or the National Cancer Institute, discovered that many cancers that are benign (though thought to be malignant) and will not metastasize until they are hit with chemotherapy. In other words, Irwin Bross f ound that many people whove been diagnosed with metastatic cancer did not have metastatic cancer until they got their chemotherapy. For many cancers, chemotherapy just does not improve your survival rate. Some of these are colorectal, gastric, pancreatic, bladder, breast, ovarian, cervical and corpus uteri, head and neck. But like mindless robots oncologists still recommend a regimen of chemotherapy. Remember when President Reagan had his colon cancer that was successf ully removed by surgery, and his health was reported daily as he recovered. Now on his return to work, a spokesperson appeared, proclaimed him cured, and that was that. However, very nearly every patient who undergoes surgery f or colon cancer gets put on chemotherapy af terwards. Why not Present Reagan? Why the exception?