by R. Webster Kehr
About This Ebook
This eBook is more technical and detailed than the
"Introduction to Alternative Cancer Treatments" eBook.
For example, it details a randomly chosen issue of the
Reader's Digest and shows how the large number of
pharmaceutical advertisements correlates with the large
number of articles in the magazine which glorify
But the real power of this book is in its discussions of
the tactics of the pharmaceutical industry, the media
and the FDA. Great detail is shown for how these three
entities manipulate and control information.
Also, in this book is a chapter on how Linus Pauling,
PhD (two-time Nobel Prize winner) and Dr. Ewan Cameron,
M.D. (actually M.B. in Scotland) demonstrated that
Vitamin C, given in moderate doses, provided far, far
better results for cancer patients than orthodox cancer
The two-time Nobel Prize winner and medical doctor
infuriated the medical establishment because they had
integrity!! The tactics to discredit the Pauling/Cameron
research are studied in detail.
In short, this eBook is for those who want to dig deeper
into the tactics of the medical establishment, the
media, the pharmaceutical industry and the FDA.
Introduction To The War in Medicine
The Foundation Of The War in Medicine
Case Study of Scientific Corruption [Pauling and
Remission, Cure Rates and Other Deceptions
The Approval of Chemotherapy Drugs
The Scientific Evidence For Alternative Medicine
Case Study of Media Corruption
How The Media and Establishment Control The
Other Control Tactics
Role of the FDA
The FDA Versus Freedom of Speech
Who Do You Believe - Follow The Money Trail
- Introduction To The War in Medicine
We live in a world of "fast foods," "fast cars," and fast answers or
should I say: "shallow answers."
Executives don't like to read reports of
more than one or two pages. People want to learn everything they
need to know about something by watching a 1/2 hour television show.
Students want to learn complicated mathematics while they play video
games. And so on.
Unfortunately, the world of cancer politics and cancer treatments
are not simple subjects. They are complicated. Plus it is impossible
to overcome decades of constant false information by reading for
half an hour. So grab something to drink, settle into your seat, and
grab your computer mouse, because this is not going to be a short
story, nor will it be entertaining.
Let us start with a metaphor.
The Small Town Metaphor
Let us suppose you move to a new town, in fact a small town with
only two car repair shops (i.e. "garages"). One of them is owned by
Jim. The other by Bob. Jim's garage is by far the biggest garage, he
has lots of customers.
The problem is that Jim's mechanics are not very good because they
have had very poor training. In fact, most of the time the cars they
have "repaired" are in worse shape when they are done, than when the
car first came in. Most people put up with Jim and just live with
the shoddy work.
However, some people go to Bob's garage, usually after they have
gone to Jim's garage first. While Jim's garage charges an average of
$1,500 per car repair job, Bob's garage only charges $75 per car
repair job. Furthermore, in over 90% of the time, Bob's garage
completely fixes the cars of its customers, including the extra
damage done by Jim's garage.
You are new to the town, and wonder why anyone would ever take their
car to Jim's garage and why everyone doesn't take their car to Bob's
Then one day as you are reading the newspaper you see part of the
problem. Jim is so rich he has several large ads in the newspaper
every day. Bob rarely advertises, and when he does he usually gets a
visit from the police, and it is not a friendly visit. It seems that
all prior policemen in the town now work at Jim's garage, and the
current policemen look forward to a cushy job at Jim's garage.
You also note that the newspaper has an article virtually every day
about how good Jim's garage is. They interview satisfied customers,
interview the mechanics, and make the mechanics sound like geniuses.
You also read about how the mechanics at Jim's garage are constantly
striving to get better and better equipment. But you note that the
better and better equipment they talk about doesn't improve
anything, it just increases the cost of their repairs.
You also note that the mayor, members of the chamber of commerce,
etc. all strongly endorse Jim's garage. You also note that many of
these influential people are highly paid part-time salesmen for
You also note that Jim contributes significantly to the local
schools, and that the children are taught how good Jim's garage is.
Finally you realize there is a war going on between Jim's garage and
Bob's garage and that those in power in the town are more interested
in which garage offers them the most benefits, than in which garage
has the best mechanics. You see that the political machine in town
does everything in their power to crush Bob's garage.
But above all, you note that month after month, year after year,
Jim's garage prices keep growing and growing, it makes obscene
profits, and usually does more damage than good in repairing the
You also note that those small number of
people who later go to Bob's garage usually get their car completely
fixed for less than $100.
What Is Wrong With This Picture?
What I have just described is the
war in modern medicine with regards to cancer treatments.
Orthodox medicine ('Big Pharma') is well organized, unbelievably well
has total control over the news media due to the massive amounts of
advertising dollars spent by the pharmaceutical industry. When was
the last time you saw a 1/2 hour television show where the main
speaker was a doctor who used alternative treatments for cancer? Try
to name 10 of the "top 100" best alternative treatments for cancer.
Would it surprise you that the pharmaceutical companies make
billions of dollars in profits on chemotherapy drugs every year?
Big Pharma also controls many other aspects of life in America due to
their many billions of dollars of clout. It turns out that there are
a lot of people who will quickly "look the other way" for the right
Alternative medicine, on the other hand, is very poorly organized,
equally poorly funded, disjointed, and severely persecuted by
People in America, unfortunately, generally make their key decisions
based solely on what they hear on television. Yet, the fact that
orthodox medicine has lots of money, and alternative medicine is
disjointed, has nothing to do with which type of medicine has the
best treatments for cancer. It only has to do with which side has
had the most money for the longest amount of time.
It is like the above metaphor: just
because Jim's garage makes far more money than Bob's garage, and
does far more advertising, doesn't mean Jim's garage charges a fair
price and does a better job.
While orthodox medicine generally uses surgery, chemotherapy and
radiation treatments, alternative medicine uses treatment plans with
Brandt Grape Cure
Essiac Tea, etc.
Did you recognize any of the treatments
I just mentioned under alternative medicine? You probably didn't.
Yet if you have
cancer, and if you make
the wrong treatment decision, it could cost you your life! That's
right - your own life.
Before you brush-off this war as being
unimportant to you, keep that in mind.
You probably think that this war is about medical theory, and that
one side believes in the "germ theory" of disease and the other side
believes in the "nutritional theory" of disease. Or perhaps you
think that orthodox medicine is interested in treating "symptoms,"
while alternative medicine is interested in treating "causes."
While there are theoretical differences,
the war is not caused by differences in medical theory.
The war is all about profits.
"We are not dealing with a
scientific problem. We are dealing with a political issue."
Samuel Epstein, M.D.
The fact of the matter is that this war
is a political war.
Like all other wars in world history, it
is all about money, power and the control of the general public.
Most of all it is a war about orthodox medicine maintaining the
power they have had since 1910.
Our government agencies and the corporations that control them have
done everything in their power to make sure you do not know the
truth about alternative medicine, and especially alternative
treatments for cancer and alternative prevention measures for heart
disease. And the
television stations and other media are not about
to say anything negative about one of their biggest advertisers -
the pharmaceutical industry.
So called "investigative journalists"
are never going to investigate the friends of their employer.
"Why does a particular story not
receive the coverage it deserves in the media? While a variety
of reasons may be at cause, foremost among them... seems to be
conflict of interest issues involving the financial concerns of
major media advertisers."
Peter Phillips, in his
Before saying more about this war, it is
instructive to go back to the beginning, to see why this war started
in the first place.
Back to Contents
2 - The Foundation of The War In Medicine
The Foundation of the War in Medicine
To understand what is going on in medicine we must look to the past.
Consider this article from the North
Carolina Museum of History on medicine in the 19th
century and before:
"Just as common as taking medicine
for a fever, from the Middle Ages through the mid-1800s,
bloodletting was performed on patients to cure disease.
Bloodletting is the process of withdrawing blood as a treatment.
Most people thought they would die anyway and used bloodletting
as a last resort. It began when Greek physician Hippocrates
claimed that all diseases occur when there is an imbalance of
the four body fluids, otherwise known as humors - black bile,
blood, phlegm, and yellow bile.
His discovery led to bloodletting.
When the blood was drawn from the vein it was believed that the
disease would flow out with the blood.
The procedure of bloodletting is done by applying either a leech
or scarificator that will make the initial puncture. Then, a
heated cup is placed over the wound that will take the
The process is repeated until all
the needed blood is taken. It was also common for the doctors to
use pointed sticks, knives, or tiny bows and arrows to draw
blood. These tools were often difficult to use and could result
in too much blood withdrawn from the patient and occasionally
A famous victim of bloodletting is George Washington. He died
from being bled heavily as a treatment for laryngitis.
Toward the end of the time period in which bloodletting was
common, leeches began to be used. They were considered less
painful and withdrew a reliable amount of blood. The peak use of
leeches was in the 1830s.
Due to the theory of Francois
Broussais many doctors used leeching for symptoms such as
laryngitis, mental illness, and obesity. [European] leeches were
preferred over American leeches, which were said to make too
small incisions and to draw less blood than the European
The use of leeching became so
popular that medicinal [American] became an endangered species."
Now suppose that in the 1830s, which was
the peak of the use of leeches, the medical community at the time,
plus the leech breeders and scarificator makers got together and
decided they had a good thing going.
Suppose they said that if they abandoned
their techniques for newer techniques that their incomes would drop
and many jobs would be lost. Those who grew leeches would make less
profits, those who made the scarificators and other instruments
would make less profits, the doctors would make less income, and so
Suppose they all conspired together to
suppress all future medical discoveries (made after 1830) in order
to maximize their earnings and profits.
Had that happened, we would still be using bloodletting, leeches and
scarificators for virtually all diseases. Scientists today would be
spending vast amounts of money studying the DNA of the leeches to
breed the most efficient leeches. Scientists would be studying the
optimum number of leeches to use, and the optimum places on the body
to place them for each type of disease.
Scientists would be studying the optimum
amount of blood to draw. The instrument makers would be designing
high precision instruments to make incisions and suctions, and so on
and so forth.
The massive dollars they would request from the general public on
"research" would yield a very small, but ever-growing amount of
A "cure" would always be "just around
the corner," but since their interest was in profits and income, not
the health, comfort and survival of their patients, the "cure" would
They might also figure out ways to cover up the lack of
progress in medicine by using creative statistics.
They might develop very clever ways to
define "cure rates" in order to hide the fact that there was very
little progress being made.
What Has Happened
Well, this "what-if" scenario for the 1830s is exactly what happened
in modern medicine around 1910.
Only instead of stopping progress with
bloodletting and leeches, the medical profession decided to stop all
medical progress at the stage of surgery, chemotherapy (which
actually came along in the 1940s but it was very profitable so they
kept it), and radiation treatments.
The original reason for stopping
progress was profits.
pharmaceutical industry, the
chemical industry and the
industry (many prescription drugs are made from petroleum products
and these three industries had cross-ownership) were afraid that new
discoveries might lessen their profits. Using the profits of these
industries as bait and influence money, the new mentality spread to
Congress, the leadership of the medical industry, and to many other
The stagnation of progress in treating cancer continues today
because the enormously profitable procedures of surgery,
chemotherapy and radiation make many, many billions of dollars every
the pharmaceutical industry
the chemical industry
the petroleum industry
medical equipment makers
TV stations (through the
advertising of the pharmaceutical companies)
radio stations (ditto)
major magazines (ditto)
the ACS (the American Cancer
Society is basically a public relations vehicle for orthodox
"Chemotherapy is an incredibly
lucrative business for doctors, hospitals, and pharmaceutical
companies… The medical establishment wants everyone to follow
the same exact protocol.
They don’t want to see the chemotherapy
industry go under, and that’s the number one obstacle to any
progress in oncology."
Dr Warner, M.D.
In other words, the medical community
has gone along with the idea that chemotherapy, radiation and
surgery are so profitable that there will never be any significant
progress in the "war against cancer."
The leaders have intentionally,
willingly, knowingly and pro-actively suppressed every possible
advance in cancer treatments for over 80 years, dating back to the
(Note: Salvarsan, the
first chemotherapy drug, was discovered by Nobel Prize winner Paul
Ehrlich in 1909 and was initially used primarily on syphilis.)
The Ralph Moss Story, by Ralph Moss
"In 1974, I began working at
Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, the world's leading
cancer treatment hospital. I was an idealistic and eager young
science writer, sincerely proud to be part of Sloan Kettering
and Nixon's "War On Cancer."
Ever since I was a kid, my main
heroes were scientists (with the Brooklyn Dodgers running a
close second!) The job at Sloan-Kettering seemed like a dream
come true for me. I wanted to be part of the winning team that
finally beat cancer.
Within three years, I had risen to the position of Assistant
Director of Public Affairs at the Hospital.
At the time, I was 34 years old,
married to my high-school sweetheart, and we had a daughter and
son, then 9 and 7 years old. We had dreams of buying a house and
saving for the kids' education, so you can imagine how thrilled
we were when I was promoted, with a huge raise, glowing feedback
from my bosses, and was told that perks of the job would
eventually include reduced tuition for the kids at New York
Needless to say, we all were really
counting on my "bright future" at Memorial Sloan-Kettering. But
something soon happened that changed the course of my life
A big part of my job as Assistant Director of Public Affairs was
to write press releases for the media about cancer news and to
write the in-hospital newsletter. I also handled calls from the
press and public about cancer issues.
So I was just doing a normal day's
work - or so I thought-when I began interviewing an esteemed
scientist at the Hospital for a newsletter article I was working
on. It turned out that the scientist, Dr. Kanematsu Sugiura, had
repeatedly gotten positive results shrinking tumors in mice
studies with a natural substance called
amygdalin (You may have
heard of it as "laetrile".)
Excitedly (and naively!) I told my
"discovery" of Sugiura's work to the Public Affairs Director and
other superiors, and laid out my plans for an article about it.
Then I got the shock of my life.
They insisted that I stop working on this story immediately and
never pick it up again. Why? They said that Dr. Sugiura's work
was invalid and totally meaningless. But I had seen the results
with my own eyes!
And I knew Dr. Sugiura was a true
scientist and an ethical person. Then my bosses gave me the
order that I'll never forget: They told me to lie.
Instead of the story I had been
planning to write, they ordered me to write an article and press
releases for all the major news stations emphatically stating
that all amygdalin studies were negative and that the substance
was worthless for cancer treatment. I protested and tried to
reason with them, but it fell on deaf ears.
I will never forget how I felt on the subway ride home that day.
My head was spinning with a mixture of strong feelings-
confusion, shock, disappointment, fear for my own livelihood and
my family's future, and behind it all, an intense need to know
why this cover-up was happening.
After long talks with my wife and
parents (who were stunned, as you can imagine) I decided to put
off writing any amygdalin press releases as long as I could
while I discreetly looked into the whole thing some more on my
own time. Everyone at the office seemed happy just to drop the
whole thing, and we got busy with other less controversial
So in the next few months, I was able to do my own investigating
to answer the big question I couldn't let go of: Who were these
people I worked for and why would they want to suppress positive
results in cancer research? My files grew thick as I uncovered
more and more fascinating - and disturbing - facts. I had never
given any thought to the politics of cancer before.
Now I was putting together the
pieces as I learned that:
The people on
Sloan-Kettering's Board of Directors were a "Who's Who"
of investors in petrochemical and other polluting
industries. In other words, the hospital was being run
by people who made their wealth by investing in the
worst cancer-causing things on the planet.
CEOs of top pharmaceutical
companies that produced cancer drugs also dominated the
Board. They had an obvious vested interest in promoting
chemotherapy and undermining natural therapies.
The Chairman and the
President of Bristol-Myers Squibb, the world's leading
producer of chemotherapy, held high positions on MSKCC's
Of the nine members of the
Hospital's powerful Institutional Policy Committee,
seven had ties to the pharmaceutical industry
The Hospital itself invested
in the stock of these same drug companies.
Directors of the biggest
tobacco companies in the U.S., Phillip Morris and RJR
Nabisco, held places of honor on the Board.
Six Board Directors also
served on the Boards of The New York Times, CBS, Warner
Communications, Readers Digest, and other media giants.
Not surprisingly, profits from
chemotherapy drugs were skyrocketing and the media glowingly
promoted every new drug as a "breakthrough" in cancer.
I kept all my notes in my filing
cabinet at work. I had no idea what I would ever do with them. I
just knew that I had to get to the bottom of it, for myself.
Meanwhile, the public's interest in laetrile refused to go away.
A lot of people were going across the border to Mexican clinics
to get the stuff and my secretary's phone was ringing off the
hook with people wanting to know what Sloan-Kettering thought of
its value. I was once again told to give out the news that the
studies had all been negative.
At home, I called my family together for a meeting. With their
support, I decided I couldn't lie on behalf of the Hospital. In
November of 1977, I stood up at a press conference and blew the
whistle on Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center's suppression
of positive results with amygdalin. It felt like jumping off the
highest diving board, but I had no doubt I was doing the right
thing. I was fired the next day for "failing to carry out his
most basic responsibilities" as the Hospital described it to the
New York Times.
In other words, failing to lie to
the American people.
When I tried to pick up my things in my office, I found my files
had been padlocked and two armed Hospital guards escorted me
from the premises.
Luckily for all of us, I have a very smart wife who all along
had been making copies of my research notes and had put a
complete extra set of files in a safe place. Those notes turned
into my first book, The Cancer Industry, which is still in print
(in an updated version) and available in bookstores.
That dramatic day, when I stood up in front of the packed press
conference and told the truth, was the beginning of a journey I
never could have predicted. I was launched on a mission that I'm
still on today - helping cancer patients find the truth about
the best cancer treatments.
Well, we weren't able to buy a home until years later, the kids
went to colleges on scholarships and loans, and my wife took on
a demanding full-time job to help us get by.
But in retrospect, my experiences as
an insider in "the cancer industry" were among the best things
ever to happen to me. My values were put to the test and I had
to really examine what was important in my life.
It is because of this difficult
experience at Sloan-Kettering that I found a truly meaningful
direction for my professional life, rather than just climbing
Sloan-Kettering's career ladder and losing my soul in the
Ralph Moss, author
The story of Ralph Moss, which is
really the story of Dr. Kanematsu Sugiura, is just the tip of
alternative cancer researchers have been
rewarded for their discoveries with jail, being driven out of the
country, loss of license, harassment, and many other things.
This war is not for the weak at heart.
Back to Contents
- Case Study of Scientific Corruption
The Dr. Ewan Cameron, M.D. and Linus
Pauling, PhD - Vitamin C Experiment
Linus Pauling is one of the few people in history who has won two
Nobel Prizes and is the only person to have won two unshared Nobel
Prizes. He lived well into his 90s.
Here is a quote from an interview with
"I became interested in vitamin C
and cancer in 1971 and began working with Ewan Cameron, M.B.,
Ch.B., chief surgeon at Vale of Leven Hospital in Scotland.
Cameron gave 10 grams of vitamin C a day to patients with
untreatable, terminal cancer.
These patients were then compared
by Cameron and me to patients with the same kind of cancer at
the same terminal stage who were being treated in the same
hospital but by other doctors - doctors who didn't give vitamin
C, but instead just gave conventional treatments.
Cameron's terminal cancer patients lived far longer compared to
the ones who didn't get 10 grams a day of vitamin C. The other
patients lived an average of six months after they were
pronounced terminal, while Cameron's patients lived an average
of about six years.
More recently I've been collaborating with Hoffer, a physician
in Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. Hoffer has treated 300
cancer patients and has recommended to all of them essentially
the same treatment [as Cameron].
But about a quarter or a third of
the patients didn't follow the treatment for one reason or
another: The family doctor might have said that those high doses
of vitamins would kill them, or the patient might have had a
stomach upset and not wanted to continue taking the vitamins.
The terminal cancer patients who didn't follow Hoffer's regimen
had a survival time of only about six months. But the ones who
followed Hoffer's therapy have done even better than Cameron's
patients. On the average they lived about 12 years after being
pronounced terminal with untreatable cancer.
Hoffer's regimen includes 12 grams of vitamin C per day, about
the same as Cameron's.
But it also includes significant amounts
of other nutrients:
800 units of vitamin E
1,000 or 2,000 mg of
large amounts of the other B vitamins and vitamin A in
the form of beta carotene
Apparently the other vitamins
cooperate with the vitamin C to give even greater control over
(Warning: Do not even
think about going on a high dose Vitamin C treatment program unless
you are working with someone with extensive experience in the
treatment. Very high doses of Vitamin C can kill the kidneys. If you
use more than 12 grams of Vitamin C a day you should be working with
a health professional.)
Actually, there were multiple experiments done by Cameron and
Their treatment protocol was very
Pick cancer patients who were
diagnosed as terminal
Who had never had chemotherapy
or radiation (there were exceptions)
Give them 10 grams (or more) of
liquid Vitamin C every day (instead of chemotherapy)
For the rest of their lives
Then measure how long they live
(Note: Today patients
generally use crystal ascorbate Vitamin C - except at clinics. Do
not too much potassium ascorbate without doctor supervision.)
It's a pretty simple protocol. A high school student could easily
follow their protocol.
The results of their experiments were
also very simple, the patients who took Vitamin C lived several
times longer than patients who took orthodox treatments with
chemotherapy and radiation. Some of their patients (remember all of
their patients were considered terminal) went into complete
remission, just using Vitamin C.
Their studies were designed to compare a Vitamin C treatment
protocol, without chemotherapy and radiation, to a typical orthodox
protocol using chemotherapy and radiation.
Note that they did not use a tricky statistic, such as determining
what percentage of the patients lived for one year, but rather they
measured how long each patient lived.
Their experiments proved beyond reasonable doubt that Vitamin C is a
superior treatment for terminal patients versus orthodox therapy.
Excuse me for stating the obvious, but if it is a superior treatment
for terminal patients, then it is a superior treatment, instead of
orthodox treatments, for the vast majority of cancer patients.
Orthodox treatments are extremely painful, destroy a person's immune
system, destroy their vital organs, and have a whole slew of other
painful and dangerous side-effects.
Vitamin C is an antioxidant
It is now thought that when Vitamin C comes into contact with a
cancer cell, hydrogen peroxide is created and that it is the
hydrogen peroxide which kills the cancer cell. It is beyond the
scope of this article to dive any deeper into the theory of using
Vitamin C on cancer, but rest assured there is far more to this
So you might wonder, since these studies were done many years ago,
why do doctors today use toxic chemotherapy instead of Vitamin C,
and the other vitamins of Hoffer?
Big Pharma's Reaction To Cameron and
Well, it turns out that
Big Pharma (the pharmaceutical industry) was
not happy with Linus Pauling and Dr. Cameron.
They were embarrassed by a two time
Nobel Prize winner. It was time for damage control.
There was a
smear campaign to discredit Dr. Pauling that continues to this day.
The reason for the campaign, no doubt, was that the patients who
took Vitamin C did not take chemotherapy. Thus, Big Pharma did not
stand to profit from the extended lives of these patients. In fact,
Big Pharma did not stand to profit from these patients at all.
Now you know why Big Pharma has been attacking Vitamin C and Linus
Pauling for many years. If cancer patients took 10 or 12 grams of
Vitamin C a day, instead of chemotherapy, they would live longer and
have far less pain.
I will translate that into something a
businessman can understand:
less "earnings per share" for Big
(Note: Before you use
this protocol, you should be aware that there are far, far better
cancer treatments today than the Pauling protocol.)
The truth about what Cameron and Pauling had discovered had to be
But since the studies were already
published, and because Pauling was already world-famous, what was
Big Pharma going to do? The answer was to conduct bogus studies
which came to different conclusions. But how can a scientific study
follow the same treatment protocol and come to a different
conclusion? It can't. However, what can be done is to refuse to
follow the same protocol and use very fancy statistical tricks.
That is exactly what happened.
But who would do such a bogus study, the treatment protocol was so
simple a high school student could have followed it? You track down
a doctor known to hate alternative medicine, one Dr. Moertel of the
In response to the success of the Cameron/Pauling studies, the NIH
funded a totally bogus "study" at the Mayo Clinic on Vitamin C that
did not even remotely follow the same patient selection protocol or
the same treatment protocol. Of course since they made no attempt to
replicate the Cameron and Pauling study, they did not get the same
Was the protocol too complicated for
them to follow?
When Cameron and Pauling complained that the study was so overtly
and grossly bogus (this ridiculous study was actually published in a
major medical journal - the New England Journal of Medicine), a
second bogus "study" was commissioned by the same NIH.
"a bogus study replacement technique" for Big Pharma and
Needless to say, the Mayo Clinic again refused to follow the simple
treatment protocol and again they did not obtain the same results.
There was even a third study, and guess what, again they did not
follow the same treatment protocol and did not get the same results
(Note: technically this third study was done by a different group,
but this group was affiliated with the Mayo Clinic).
Do you see a
The fact of the matter is, the doctors at the Mayo Clinic knew the
Cameron/Pauling protocol worked and they knew that if they followed
their protocols they would have come to the same results. So they
never did follow their protocols and obviously never did replicate
their results. The most educational thing about their studies was
the incredible statistical tricks they used to avoid the truth.
Not only did Hoffer follow the Cameron/Pauling protocols, but a
Japanese study also replicated their selection and treatment
protocols and also replicated their results!
Four totally independent studies (two by
Cameron) used the same treatment protocol and got the same results.
Three bogus studies at Mayo Clinic did not use the same treatment
protocol and did not get the same results.
The Mayo Clinic studies were done specifically to discredit the work
of two-time Nobel Prize winner Linus Pauling. Linus Pauling was
getting people to believe there was "scientific evidence" for
Vitamin C, and he had to be stopped. It is totally unacceptable
(from the viewpoint of Big Pharma) for our corrupt government to
allow any scientific evidence for alternative treatments of cancer.
Because there was scientific evidence
for Vitamin C, and because they could not shut-up a two-time Nobel
Prize winner, there had to be bogus studies designed to divert
people's attention from the valid studies.
Once the bogus studies were finished,
the media could then take over the suppression of truth and
immediately start blacklisting the valid studies.
A Little Logic
Which of these seven studies do all government agencies, quackwatch,
the BC Cancer Agency, American Cancer Society, ad nauseum, depend on
to justify the use of chemotherapy instead of mega doses of Vitamin
They quote the three Mayo Clinic studies
and complain that Pauling and Cameron did not know what they were
doing. In other words, the Mayo Clinic refused to follow the simple
protocol, and it was Cameron and Pauling's fault! Hmmm.
Did you follow all of that?
Let me summarize it this way:
Group A (Cameron and Pauling)
found that Vitamin C extended the lives of terminal cancer
Group B (Hoffer and the
Japanese), using the same protocol as Group A, confirmed
Group C (the Mayo Clinic), which
said they were going to test the validity of the Group A
study, did not use the same selection protocol or treatment
protocol as Group A, and obviously did not replicate their
results. Group A complained that Group C made absolutely no
attempt to use the same treatment protocol as Group A.
Thus, Group C did a second study, and
again did not follow Group A's protocols, and again did not
replicate their results. This happened a third time.
Now you know what is going on in
medicine. The treatment protocol is irrelevant to scientists who
Big Pharma, they are only
interested in making sure Vitamin C doesn't look good because
Vitamin C is not profitable to Big Pharma.
You might be interested to know exactly what
etc. complained about in the Cameron/Pauling study. They complained
it was not a "double blind" study.
Now let's think about this for a moment. Suppose two groups are
selected for a study and the patients are not told which group they
are in. The first group is secretly given Vitamin C in an IV, which
builds their immune system, provide zero pain, and the patients feel
fine. The second group is secretly given chemotherapy in an IV,
which destroys their immune-system, destroys their vital organs,
makes them feel sick, and causes enormous pain.
Do you think the patients could figure
out which group they were in? Do you think you could do a "double
blind" study with Vitamin C versus chemotherapy? Don't be
Doing a double-blind study on Vitamin C versus chemotherapy would be
like doing a double blind study on battery acid versus chocolate
cake. Within a matter of days each group would know what kind of
treatment they were on.
But it gets deeper than that. Let me quote from quackwatch, a
defender of orthodox medicine and one of the major servants of Big
Pharma (and major persecutor of alternative medicine).
See if you can figure out what tricks of
logic they are using before you read my comments about their
"The Pauling/Cameron study was not a
clinical trial in which patients were compared to carefully
matched patients chosen at random and followed using a
standardized [selection] protocol. Instead, Pauling and Cameron
attempted to reconstruct what happened to the control group by
examining their medical records.
Most cancer specialists and journal
editors are extremely reluctant to accept [medical records] for
evaluating the validity of contemporary cancer therapy,
primarily because bias may occur in selecting controls."
First of all, it is a blatant lie that
medical records are not acceptable in medical research, they are
Second, there was nothing unethical about using a single group. The
death rate using chemotherapy and radiation is well known (though
they always use statistical tricks to make orthodox treatments look
better than they really are) and these patients were going to die in
any case, it was only a matter of when and that could be easily
Furthermore, by not taking chemotherapy,
the patients would be in much less pain even if they did not live as
There are many cancer patients who would rather have a less painful
treatment plan, even if they don't live as long. In fact many cancer
patients drop out of chemotherapy because they lose interest in a
treatment plan that makes them so sick and causes them so much pain
But to go a little deeper, imagine that two cars collide in an
intersection, a red car and a green car. The red car ran a "red
light" several seconds after the light had turned red and was
speeding as it entered the intersection. The green car, which did
not enter the intersection until after the light turned green, had
one tire that was low in air pressure. Imagine the judge saying that
the green car was at fault because the air pressure in one of its
tires was low.
Imagine the judge ignoring the fact that
the red car ran a red light and was speeding! Using Barrett's logic,
the green car was at fault.
Barrett's (the M.D. owner of quackwatch) site was saying was
that there was no placebo control group. In other words, when they
picked the control group, they used medical records rather than a
placebo control group.
The key question is this:
"if Cameron and Pauling had used a
placebo group, instead of medical records, would the
psychological effect of taking a placebo have resulted in the
placebo control group living several times longer than they
Barrett must that thought the answer to
that question was "yes."
As already mentioned, such a study would
be impossible when comparing Vitamin C to chemotherapy, which is
what Cameron and Pauling were comparing.
But there is another problem. If a placebo group were required, what
two groups would you use? It could not be Vitamin C versus
chemotherapy, because one group must be given nothing (i.e. a
placebo). But if you compare the placebo group to the Vitamin C
group (which actually would have been acceptable if that is what you
were studying), you still have to ultimately compare the Vitamin C
group to the chemotherapy group by using medical records.
Thus, you cannot get around using
medical records if you want to compare Vitamin C to chemotherapy.
A "double-blind" study is supposed to avoid any psychological
effect. What psychological effect should a study be concerned about
using a group of dead people? Should the statistics of dead people
have been avoided due to the psychological effect on people who died
several years earlier?
Is it possible that in four different studies, done in three
different countries (Scotland, Canada and Japan), that a
psychological factor caused a several-fold increase in survival
time? If so, why didn't both groups in the Mayo Clinic studies
survive several times longer than expected, because both groups
thought they were getting Vitamin C?
Even if the psychological theory was
true, I would still give people Vitamin C, if their psychological
state of mind caused them to live several times longer!
If fact, Barrett's argument is total nonsense. The purpose of the
study was to compare Vitamin C to chemotherapy, and that is
impossible to do using a double blind study. The real reason the two
groups of studies yielded different results was the treatment
Here is the important thing, quackwatch didn't even mention that
there were any differences in the treatment protocols between
Pauling and Moertel (i.e. they didn't mention that the red car had
run a red light or that it was speeding). Their focus was on the
selection protocol (i.e. the air pressure in the tires of the two
Do you see how quackwatch twisted the facts and used sensationalism
to divert your attention from the most important issues. It is as if
Dr. Cameron did not know how to determine which hospital the
patients were at, what kind of cancer they had, which stage of
cancer the patients were at, and which doctors treated which
Let me re-quote from above:
"These patients were then compared
by Cameron and me to patients with the same kind of cancer at
the same terminal stage who were being treated in the same
hospital but by other doctors - doctors who didn't give vitamin
C, but instead just gave conventional treatments."
To quackwatch, this wasn't good enough
because it didn't come to the correct answer - use prescription
The vastly different treatment protocol
used by the Mayo Clinic is more "scientific" because it leads you to
take prescription drugs. Get used to this type of propaganda, you
will see it all the time. They love to divert your attention with
A normal, open-minded researcher, if they studied the
Pauling/Cameron studies and the three Mayo Clinic studies, would
quickly look at the selection protocol and see nothing significant
to complain about the Pauling study.
They would then focus their attention on
the treatment protocol. Since the two groups of studies had vastly
different results, it would be absolutely obvious to the legitimate
researchers that something significant was different about their
studies. By far the thing that was most significant was the
Barrett also has a page on Linus Pauling himself. The title to the
quackwatch page on Linus Pauling is titled: "The
Dark Side of Linus Pauling's Legacy."
Ohhhh, it sounds like Linus Pauling
joined the "Dark Side" before he died.
The article starts:
"Linus Pauling, Ph.D., was the only
person ever to win two unshared Nobel prizes. He received these
awards for chemistry in 1954 and for peace in 1962. His recent
death has stimulated many tributes to his scientific
accomplishments. His impact on the health marketplace [sic],
however, was anything but laudable."
Yes, I agree Pauling's impact on Big
Pharma was not laudable. He was a pain in their neck. He had
integrity and was looking to help cancer patients, not Big Pharma
You should realize that Vitamin C, by itself, is not a cure for
cancer, but if it can extend the life of terminal cancer patients by
5 1/2 years or even 1 year (depending on how advanced they were when
treatment began), that gives them plenty of time to use the natural
treatments that do cure cancer.
Later, I will talk about the "top 100" most effective alternative
treatments for cancer. Where does Vitamin C therapy fit in this
list? It is not on the list. Not even close. It's cure rate is far
too low. It is used in alternative medicine largely to extend the
life of the patient so far more effective treatments have more time
However, Vitamin C is used in some medical clinics with excellent
success. But for those treating themselves at home, Vitamin C is too
dangerous at very high levels.
Two excellent books on the subject of Vitamin C and cancer are:
"Cancer and Vitamin C - A
Discussion of the Nature, Causes, Prevention, and Treatment
of Cancer", by Ewan Cameron, M.B., Ch.B., F.R.C.S. and Linus
"Vitamin C Against Cancer", by
H. L. Newbold, M.D.
The Bogus Mayo Clinic Studies on
Largely the same people at the Mayo clinic also did two bogus
studies on laetrile therapy to discredit the tens of thousands of
testimonials of people cured by laetrile therapy (Vitamin B17).
The public was beginning to believe that
laetrile actually worked. Time for damage control. Guess what, the
Mayo Clinic did not follow standard American protocol and dosages.
For example, if they had followed the standard laetrile diet, which
is virtually the same thing as a "raw food" diet, the diet alone
would have significantly extended the lives of the patients.
But in this case it was the watered-down and phony "laetrile" the
NIH provided to the Mayo Clinic that was perhaps the most bogus part
of these studies.
The NIH, which funded the bogus studies,
did not allow an alternative treatment vendor to supply the laetrile
for at least one of the studies, even though the vendor offered to
supply the laetrile for free.
Back to Contents
Chapter 4 - Remission, Cure Rates and Other Deceptions
This is the longest chapter in this book, and it is the most
important. Do not rush through it.
First, I am going to ask three questions.
Write down your answers to these
questions on a piece of paper before reading any further:
When you hear that someone has
"gone into remission," what goes through your mind?
Because chemotherapy causes so
much pain and suffering, what statistic would justify its
What does "cure rate" mean?"
Write your answers on a piece of paper,
then read this chapter, then see how accurate your answers were.
A newly diagnosed cancer patient has several options to deal with
Treatment Options For Newly Diagnosed Cancer
Have surgery, chemotherapy and
radiation (i.e. orthodox treatments), as prescribed by their
doctor (this may include orthodox treatments other than
surgery, chemotherapy and radiation).
Have surgery, chemotherapy and
radiation, but drop out of the treatment program
Refuse all treatments (i.e. have
zero surgery, zero chemotherapy, zero radiation, zero
alternative treatments, etc.)
Have alternative treatments
after extensive orthodox treatments and after doctors have
given up all hope for the treatment of this patient.
Have alternative treatments
after some orthodox treatments, but the patient dropped out
of the orthodox treatment program prematurely.
Have alternative treatments
instead of orthodox treatments (i.e. they refused orthodox
Note that in the last three items, which
deal with alternative treatments, there are over 400 different
alternative cancer treatments, thus there are really over 400
options available to a newly diagnosed cancer patient.
The key question to be dealt with is this: how do we determine which
treatment plan is "best?"
I think a normal person would judge the
effectiveness of a treatment plan (or lack of effectiveness) on the
basis of three criteria:
Treatment Decision Criteria
First, "length of life since
diagnosis" (quantity of life, meaning how long do they live
between diagnosis and death)
Second, "quality of life since
diagnosis" (lack of pain and sickness)
Third, "strength of the immune
system during and after treatments" (this is a measure of
the body's ability to fight future cancer events)
For example, suppose Treatment A and
Treatment B have identical "length of life since diagnosis" figures,
but Treatment A patients have extreme suffering during treatment and
patients of Treatment B have very little pain and suffering.
I suspect that everyone would judge
Treatment B as being the better or preferred of the two treatment
These three treatment decision criteria can lead to some subjective
evaluations. For example, suppose the patients on Treatment Plan C
have a "length of life since diagnosis" of 12 months, and the
patients on Treatment Plan D have a "length of life since diagnosis"
of 11 months, but have far, far less pain, suffering and sickness
during treatment. Which treatment plan is best? The answer is
subjective, but I think most people would favor Treatment Plan D.
In short, we can intuitively define a
treatment plan as "best" if it is the most desirable treatment plan,
given the data of the three treatment decision criteria statistics.
In other words, the plan picked by the most number of people who
have accurate treatment decision information about the treatment
options would be judged the "best" plan.
For example, suppose a person had a list of all possible treatment
options (even the 400 alternative treatments) and for each treatment
option they had accurate data for all three treatment decision
criteria (e.g. quantity, quality and immune system) for their type
of newly diagnosed cancer at the stage in which they are in at the
time of diagnosis.
The person could look at the chart and
within a few minutes pick their treatment protocol. It would be easy
to decide which option to choose.
But therein lies the problem, what is the accurate data for the
above treatment options for the three treatment decision criteria,
for a specific type of cancer diagnosed at a specific stage? None of
this data is available. You might be interested to know "why" this
data is not available.
That is what this chapter is about.
The Theory of Orthodox Medicine
Orthodox medicine is generally based on a three-pronged attack.
To understand this attack, let us
consider a person who has newly diagnosed colon cancer, which has
metastasized to other parts of their body.
The medical doctors would first consider the density of cancer cells
in various parts of the person's body. Most likely, the density of
the cancer cells in the colon area would be higher than in any other
part of the body.
The first rule of orthodox medicine is to cut out the parts of the
body that have the densest level of cancer cells. This is called
surgery. Thus, surgeons would cut out the sections of the body that
have a dense level of cancer cells even when the cancer has spread
far, far beyond their ability to cut it all out.
The second rule of orthodox medicine is to use chemotherapy to treat
the less dense areas of cancer cells (i.e. the areas which were not
The third rule of orthodox medicine is to use radiation (i.e.
radiotherapy) to complete the treatment plan. This might be to kill
even more cancer cells and put the patient into remission.
Before going any further, I should talk about alternative treatments
for cancer. First, alternative treatments for cancer rarely, and I
mean rarely, ever depend on surgery.
For example, there were only three situations where Dr. Binzel, an
M.D. laetrile doctor (which is one type of alternative treatment),
advised surgery for his laetrile patients:
"If the tumor, because of its
size or position, is interfering with some vital function,
you have to deal with the tumor by whatever means are best
If the tumor, because of its
size or position, is causing pain, you have to deal with the
tumor by whatever means are available.
If the presence of the tumor
presents a psychological problem for the patient, have it
Dr. Binzel, Alive and
Well, chapter 14
Doctor Binzel also said:
"If the tumor is remote, not causing
any problems, and the patient agrees, I leave the tumor alone."
It is important to understand the
reasons for his statements.
A tumor is a symptom of cancer, and
generally does not threaten the life of a patient. It is the
spreading of the cancer that causes life-threatening situations.
Neither surgery, chemotherapy nor radiation stop the spreading of
cancer. Only the immunesystem, a special alkaline diet, etc. can
stop the spreading of cancer.
It is interesting to note that none of Dr. Binzel's three reasons
for surgery had anything to do with treating the cancer. All of the
reasons were physical or mental, and had nothing to do with killing
Obviously, however, if a person has a small benign skin cancer,
there is nothing wrong with cutting it off. This, in spite of the
fact there is a superb alternative treatment for skin cancer called
Cansema Black Salve and there are
other skin cancer treatments.
Because alternative treatments rarely use surgery, this means
alternative treatments work on the dense areas of cancer cells
equally well as the less dense areas of cancer cells. This is
because alternative treatments selectively kill cancer cells
(directly or indirectly), and thus work equally well whether the
cancer cells are in dense or less dense areas.
Getting back to orthodox medicine, you might ask yourself this
"if chemotherapy is as good as people say it is, then why
is surgery necessary?"
In other words:
"if chemotherapy is so good
why isn't chemotherapy, instead of surgery, used on the very dense
sections of cancer cells?"
To compare the two treatment types, if someone said chemotherapy was
better than alternative treatments, then it would be logical that
orthodox medicine would not demand surgery and alternative
treatments would demand surgery.
But just the opposite is true,
chemotherapy demands surgery and alternative medicine has no
interest or need for surgery in most cases. Something is wrong with this picture.
But I am getting ahead of myself.
need to talk about definitions.
Remission, Response, Markers, etc.
I just mentioned that none of the
above data is available.
Then what exactly do doctors measure?
They measure things like "response," meaning is there improvement in
some criteria, such as a reduction in the size of a tumor. They
measure such things as "remission," meaning the absence of symptoms.
They measure such things as "tumor markers," which are a variety of
measurement techniques to evaluate the cancer. And so on.
Before going any further, it is necessary to introduce a metaphor.
Suppose there are 10 automobile manufacturers: Companies B1, B2, B3,
B4 and B5 (the "B companies"), and also Companies G1, G2, G3, G4 and
G5 (the "G" companies). Suppose the B companies make cars that start
to break down after 50,000 miles, just after the warranty runs out
(the "B" stands for Bad).
Suppose that after 100,000 miles
virtually all of the cars manufactured by the B companies have
needed a new engine, a new transmission, and a new air conditioner,
just to name three things their cars routinely need. In fact, these
companies buy cheap parts and charge outrageous prices for their
poorly built cars.
They also use 80 year old metal
technology to insure their customers have to buy new cars every 3 or
Suppose also that the G companies make cars that last an average of
300,000 miles without any major repairs (the "G" stands for "Good").
They buy quality parts for their cars, build them extremely well,
use the newest metal technologies, etc. in building their cars.
Suppose also the B companies are the much older, much larger and
much richer companies.
By virtue of their age and size, their
advertising money is many times greater than the advertising money
of the G companies. Since the media are always loyal to their
advertisers, the media always does what the B companies want them to
do and always say what the B companies want them to say. It's not
that the B companies "tell" them what to say, that is not necessary.
What happens is that if the media says
something that makes the B companies angry, the B companies will
withdraw their advertising money and give that money to a competing
media company that follows the rules. Everyone knows the rules.
Suppose we define the "life" of a car to be the number of miles the
original engine lasts. For the B companies the average "life" of
their cars would be less than 100,000 miles. For the G companies the
average "life" of their cars would be greater than 300,000 miles.
Suppose we refuse to allow air conditioners to be replaced when they
break and define the "quality of life" of a car to be the number of
miles the original air conditioner lasts. Again, for the B companies
the average "quality of life" of their cars would be much less than
the "quality of life" for the cars of the G companies.
Suppose we define the "strength of movement" of a car to be the
number of miles the original transmission lasts. Again, for the B
companies the average "strength of movement" of their cars would be
much less than the "strength of movement" for the cars of the G
If we built a chart comparing the cars of the B companies to the
cars of the G companies, with these three statistics accurately
reflected, no one in their right mind would buy a car built by a B
But remember that the B companies have the most money and the most
clout with the media. So what can they do to get customers?
They can do a lot of things that
distract potential customers from the important statistics. But the
most important thing they will do is suppress these statistics.
Their goal is to divert people's attention from the statistics
(which are suppressed) and get them to think of other things.
For example, in their advertisements they can talk about the "style"
of their cars, the "popularity" of their cars or how "powerful"
their engines are.
They can advertise their cars
using pretty women who look lonely, giving the impression
that someone who buys one of their cars will be seduced by
every pretty woman in town.
They can talk about the options
available on the car.
They can do a lot of things to
avoid talking about the three important statistics I just
They can sell a lot of cars by
distracting their potential customers from the data (i.e.
from the truth).
It could be called "selling by
That is essentially what the medical community has done with
orthodox medicine nomenclature. The most popular phrase heard in
orthodox medicine is "remission."
Orthodox treatments "put people in
That sounds really good. It sounds like
everyone should get cancer so they can go into remission. However,
as I will show, the word "remission" can be equated to the pretty
woman in the advertisement.
It is a nice sounding word, and it
attracts millions of customers, but it distracts these "customers"
from the statistics that are important.
What Does "Remission" Really Mean?
First of all, the National Cancer
Institute defines "remission" as:
"A decrease in or disappearance of
signs and symptoms of cancer. In partial remission, some, but
not all, signs and symptoms of cancer have disappeared.
complete remission, all signs and symptoms of cancer have
disappeared, although cancer still may be in the body."
What exactly does this definition mean
relative to the three "treatment decision criteria" mentioned above.
You, the citizen, are supposed to assume
that "remission" means a person is cured of their cancer. But that
is not what the definition states. It states there is an absence of
"signs and symptoms."
So is there a correlation between the absence
of "signs and symptoms" and the three treatment decision criteria
Generally, the determination of remission is based on a reduction in
the size of the tumor or in the change of some tumor marker.
These things may indicate the number of
cancer cells in the body, but they are very, very crude estimates of
the number of cancer cells in the body. These numbers also do not
measure the pain and suffering of the patient (i.e. the quality of
life) or the status of the immune system, which is very, very
important especially if all of the cancer cells have not been
Make no mistake about it, chemotherapy and radiation shrink the size
of tumors. They also kill cancer cells, lots of them. But in the
process of doing these things there are potentially dozens of side
effects, such as: death, destruction of a major organ, intense pain,
extreme sickness, etc. and the death of many, many normal cells.
Chemotherapy does not discriminate
between normal cells and cancerous cells, and since there are more
normal cells than cancer cells, chemotherapy kills far more normal
cells than cancerous cells.
So it is logical to think that the concept of "remission" tells us
quantitatively what the "length of life since diagnosis" is?
Let us break down the "length of life
since diagnosis" into its pieces using the concept of remission:
What percentage of people die
before they go into "remission?"
What is the average "length of
life since diagnosis" for those who die before they go into
What percentage of people live
long enough to go into remission and die of cancer or cancer
treatments (directly or indirectly) while they are in
What is the average "length of
live since diagnosis" for those who survive long enough to
go into remission and die while they are in remission?
What percentage of people go
into remission and later get cancer again (either the same
type of cancer or some other type of cancer) and thus come
out of remission and become cancer patients again?
What is the average "length of
life since diagnosis" for those who come out of remission
and get cancer again?
What percentage of people who go
into remission are actually "cured," meaning they never get
cancer again and do not die of anything related to their
cancer or their cancer treatments?
What is the average "length of
life since diagnosis" for those who are actually "cured" of
If we had all of these statistics, we
could calculate the "length of life since diagnosis" for cancer
patients using orthodox treatments.
In fact, I would love to see all of the
above statistics for orthodox medicine patients. But of course these
statistics are not available.
There is simply a lot of hoopla that
people "go into remission."
Is it possible that the whole
concept of "remission" is designed to hide simple statistics
that would tell us how effective or ineffective chemotherapy
and other orthodox treatments are?
In other words, it is so very
simple to calculate the "length of life since diagnosis"
(i.e. "survival time") for orthodox medicine patients, why
isn't it just calculated?
Why is something so simple made
into something so complicated?
It would be an easy thing to calculate
the "length of life since diagnosis" for people who refuse
Doctors say it would be unethical to ask
people to not take orthodox treatments, but there are plenty of
people who refuse treatment, so why not calculate how long they live
since diagnosis? Then this number could be compared to a very simple
"length of life since diagnosis" for cancer patients who go through
orthodox treatments (of course the patients in each group would have
to be grouped by sex, age at diagnosis, type of cancer and stage of
cancer at diagnosis).
If we had the "length of life since diagnosis" for patients who took
orthodox treatments, and compared this number to a similar group of
patients who had refused treatments, we could quickly tell whether
orthodox treatments were any good.
But none of this data is kept, it must
be dug out.
"My studies have proved conclusively
that untreated cancer victims live up to four times longer than
treated individuals. If one has cancer and opts to do nothing at
all, he will live longer and feel better than if he undergoes
radiation, chemotherapy or surgery, other than when used in
immediate life-threatening situations."
Prof Jones. (1956
Transactions of the N.Y. Academy of Medical Sciences, vol 6.
There is a fifty page article by Hardin Jones of National Cancer
Institute of Bethesda, Maryland. He surveyed global cancer of
all types and compared the untreated and the treated, to
conclude that the untreated outlives the treated, both in terms
of quality and in terms of quantity.")
If the real data would lead to the
conclusion that people who go on orthodox treatments live
significantly longer than people who refuse treatments, or refuse
treatments and take an alternative treatment, you can rest assured
the orthodox medical community would blast these statistics from the
But they don't keep those statistics,
which leads a logical person to conclude they have something to
"A German epidemiologist from the
Heidelberg/Mannheim Tumor Clinic, Dr Ulrich Abel, has done a
comprehensive review and analysis of every major study and
clinical trial of chemotherapy ever done. His conclusions should
be read by anyone who is about to embark on the Chemo Express.
To make sure he had reviewed
everything ever published on chemotherapy, Abel sent letters to
over 350 medical centers around the world, asking them to send
him anything they had published on the subject. Abel researched
thousands of articles: it is unlikely that anyone in the world
knows more about chemotherapy than he.
"The analysis took him several years, but the results are
astounding: Abel found that the overall worldwide success rate
of chemotherapy was 'appalling' because there was simply no
scientific evidence available anywhere that chemotherapy can
'extend in any appreciable way the lives of patients suffering
from the most common organic cancers'.
Abel emphasizes that chemotherapy
rarely can improve the quality of life.
He describes chemotherapy as 'a
scientific wasteland' and states that at least 80 per cent of
chemotherapy administered throughout the world is worthless and
is akin to the 'emperor's new clothes' - neither doctor nor
patient is willing to give up on chemotherapy, even though there
is no scientific evidence that it works! (Lancet, 10 August
1991) No mainstream media even mentioned this comprehensive
study: it was totally buried."
Tim O'Shea, The Doctor
How Chemotherapy Can Be "Justified"
First of all, chemotherapy cannot
If it does not increase the life of the
patients significantly (compared to those who refuse treatment),
then orthodox treatments are not only worthless, they do an enormous
amount of damage. Orthodox treatments destroy the immune system,
destroy vital organs, cause immense pain and sickness, can damage
Let me say this another way. Everyone has cancer cells. The body's
immune system routinely kills cancer cells and stops the spreading
of cancer. Thus, cancer patients obviously have a weakened immune
system to begin with. Chemotherapy further weakens the immune
system, making the body even less resistant to cancer. Thus, even
though chemotherapy kills cancer cells, it also weakens the immune
system, kills normal cells, etc.
Thus, chemotherapy does both good and
bad. But does it do more good or more bad?
Now listen to this carefully: the only way to justify using
chemotherapy and radiation is if these techniques significantly
extend the life of the patient compared to no treatment at all and
compared to those who go the alternative route. Because of the
damage that orthodox treatments do, there is no other way to justify
the use of orthodox medicine. But it appears that it does not extend
life except in rare cases.
So why does the medical community use
surgery, chemotherapy and radiation?
“Most cancer patients in this
country die of chemotherapy. Chemotherapy does not eliminate
breast, colon, or lung cancers. This fact has been documented
for over a decade, yet doctors still use chemotherapy for these
Allen Levin, MD UCSF The
Healing of Cancer (Marcus Books, 1990)
One of the problems with the concept of
"remission" is that the medical community conveniently forgets to
tell you how many patients "relapse," meaning come out of remission.
Read this quote carefully:
"Ovarian cancer is usually detected
at an advanced stage and, as such, is one of the deadliest and
most difficult cancers to treat. Therapy can eradicate the
tumors, but most patients relapse within two years... Normally,
when a woman is diagnosed with ovarian cancer, she undergoes
surgery to have the tumors removed.
The ovaries, fallopian tubes, uterus
and parts of the bowel are often removed as well. Chemotherapy
follows the surgery, and about 90 percent of patients then go
into remission, a period of "watchful waiting."
"The problem is that over the next
five to 10 years, as many as 90 percent of women will relapse
and die," says Berek. When the cancer returns in other
surrounding tissue, it is more virulent and resistant to
In other words, virtually all ovarian
cancer patients go into remission, but 90% of them also come out of
remission, in what is called "relapse," and die within 5 to 10
Then why even bother to talk about
"remission" if 90% of the patients also relapse? To make
chemotherapy sound good, that's why. "Relapse" is commonly called
More importantly, remission "justifies" the medical community to use
more and more chemotherapy, and stronger and stronger doses of
chemotherapy. But if 90% relapse, what proof is there that
"remission" has a significant effect on life expectancy? If dosages
get stronger and stronger, then there is more and more damage to the
immune system, which makes a person even more vulnerable to cancer,
either the original kind or another kind.
Many women who have ovarian cancer had
breast cancer (and thus chemotherapy) earlier in their lives.
"Two years ago, Hazel was diagnosed
with breast cancer. She described her chemotherapy as the worst
experience of her life.
'This highly toxic fluid was being
injected into my veins. The nurse administering it was wearing
protective gloves because it would burn her skin if just a tiny
drip came into contact with it. I couldn't help asking myself,
'If such precautions are needed to be taken on the outside, then
what is it doing to me on the inside?'"
What Most People Die Of
Most people who "die of
cancer" really die as a result of the treatment of the cancer by
orthodox methods before they would have died of the cancer itself.
In other words:
the treatment kills them before the
cancer kills them.
Most cancer patients die of malnutrition
(cancer cells steal nutrients from normal cells thus cancer patients
need a stronger than normal immune system) or opportunistic
infections caused by a weakened immune system.
"The powerful drugs used in cancer
chemotherapy effectively kill reproducing cells, including both
the malignant tumor cells and also, as a side effect, many cells
continually reproducing such as hair follicle cells and those
lining the gut, leading to severe nausea & vomiting.
These side effects can be very
severe and many patients find these difficult or impossible to
tolerate, falling into a wasting syndrome through malnutrition
brought on by a combination of reduced appetite and poor
gastrointestinal efficiency, which can itself shorten life
Chemotherapy also destroys the immune
system in several different ways (including the damage done to the
gastrointestinal tract causing less immune building nutrients to be
absorbed, among other ways), making people much more susceptible to
Because chemotherapy is so toxic, a person might ask:
"can chemotherapy kill the all of
the cancer cells before it kills the patient?"
The answer is 'no'.
But let us get back to our main question:
"does the concept of 'remission'
equate to the concept of 'length of life since diagnosis?'"
Most people assume there is a direct
correlation, however, the damage done by chemotherapy and radiation,
and the severe shortening of life due to the complications of these
two treatments, cause severe doubt as to the equivalence of
'remission' and 'length of life since diagnosis.'
My point is to say that the measurement statistics of orthodox
medicine (i.e. response, remission and markers) have no bearing on
life expectancy because they do not compare the benefits of
chemotherapy (killing of cancer cells and reduction of tumor size)
versus the damage done by chemotherapy (e.g. destruction of immune
system, destruction of vital organs, etc.).
Nor does the reduction in tumor size
have anything to do with life expectancy (I will talk more about
"It makes no sense at all to use
chemotherapy and other treatments that damage cells and tear
down and weaken the immune system, when the problem in the first
place is that the immune system is too weak already. Even if the
tumors go into remission, these treatments have damaged other
cells which are more likely to turn cancerous."
The last part of that statement requires
"Chemotherapy has other drawbacks.
There is an increased incidence of second, apparently unrelated
malignancies in patients who have been "cured" by means of
This is probably because the drugs themselves
are carcinogenic. When radiation and chemotherapy were given
together, the incidence of these second tumors was approximately
twenty-five times the expected rate.
Since both radiation and chemotherapy suppress the immune
system, it is possible that new tumors are allowed to grow
because the patient has been rendered unable to resist them.
either case, a person who is cured of cancer by these drastic
means may find herself struggling with a new, drug-induced tumor
a few years later."
Industry - New Updated Edition - Page 78
So let us summarize this discussion:
With regards to "length of life
since diagnosis," the concepts of "remission" and "reduction"
are ineffective at evaluating the quantitative "length of life
since diagnosis" because they fail to calculate an accurate
number of cancer cells still in the body (at the time the cancer
is determined to be in "remission"), and they fail to take into
account the severely weakened immune system that can no longer
routinely deal with cancer cells (a normal immune system
routinely kills cancer cells, but not a weakened immune system).
Thus, there is a significant
probability the same cancer will return or another cancer will
In other words:
there is no proven correlation
between being in "remission" and increasing the "length of life
Perhaps more importantly, there is no
evidence that chemotherapy and radiation significantly increase the
life of patients (compared to those who refuse treatment or go with
alternative treatments), which would be necessary to justify their
"In 1975, the respected British
medical journal Lancet reported on a study which compared the
effect on cancer patients of,
a single chemotherapy
no treatment at all
No treatment 'proved a significantly
better policy for patients' survival and for quality of
of Cancer - The Cures - the Cover-ups and the Solution Now! -
With regards to "quality of life since
diagnosis," there is no question that chemotherapy and radiation
fail miserably in this area.
Chemotherapy and radiation both decrease
a person's quality of life to such a degree that many cancer
patients in treatment quit their treatment program. They would
rather be dead than have to go through such misery.
With regards to "strength of the immune system during and after
treatments," chemotherapy and radiation treatments fail miserably in
this criteria also. In fact it is the destruction of the immune
system that causes many patients to die during treatment.
In short, the concepts of "remission" and "reduction" fail to relate
to meaningful statistics with regards to "length of life since
diagnosis." Chemotherapy and radiation fail the other two criteria
in spite of a patient going into remission.
We thus conclude with extreme vigor that the concept of "remission"
and "reduction" are not valuable measures by which to judge the
effectiveness of orthodox treatments for cancer.
In a future chapter I will use verified
statistics to compare orthodox medicine with alternative medicine.
Let us talk about what are
called "cure rates" or "survival rates."
Orthodox medicine generally says that if
a person lives for five years after diagnosis, they are "cured" of
cancer, even if they die in the sixth year. In other words, if there
is more than 5 years between diagnosis and death, they were "cured"
of cancer. This is how they determine their "survival rates."
A person might wonder why the medical community would use such a
concept, knowing that the concept of "length of life since
diagnosis" is so simple, so intuitive and so logical. And so useful.
Let us return to our automobile metaphor.
How can the B companies hide the fact that they intentionally make
really crappy cars? They can use statistics.
Suppose they decide to
do a study to find out how many of their cars have their engine
replaced within the first 30,000 miles. The number will be quite
low, almost as low as the same statistic calculated for G company
This statistic will make it appear that
the B companies make cars as good as the G companies. They didn't
lie, they used statistics. G company cars are far superior to the B
company cars, but you would never know that by looking at that one
statistic. That is the whole purpose of using such a statistic!
The G company car makers, on the other hand, would want to see the
percentage of cars made by the B companies that still have their
original engine after 150,000 miles. That would be a very low
percentage for the B companies, and a very high percentage for the G
companies. This statistic would make it very clear which company
made, by far, the best cars. But the B companies control the
airwaves and the media would never allow its "journalists" to report
This is exactly how the cancer industry hides the very poor results
of surgery, chemotherapy and radiation. Their definition of "cure
rate" is based on the percentage of cancer patients who live 5
years, between diagnoses and death, not 10 years and not 15 years.
How does the 5 year number tell us what
percentage of cancer patients eventually die of cancer? It doesn't.
The orthodox medical community has done
exactly what the B companies above have done, lied with statistics.
"Keep in mind that the 5 year mark
is still used as the official guideline for "cure" by mainstream
oncologists. Statistically, the 5 year cure makes chemotherapy
look good for certain kinds of cancer, but when you follow
cancer patients beyond 5 years, the reality often shifts in a
John Diamond, M.D.
Getting the Cure Rate Up
Using this definition, what kinds of things would cause "cure rates"
to go up?
Instead of lengthening the time a person
lives after diagnoses, how about diagnosing the cancer earlier? By
diagnosing cancer earlier, there is a longer period of time between
diagnosis and death, thus increasing the percentage of people who
live more than 5 years between diagnosis and death.
Before a person is diagnosed with cancer, it is quite common for the
person to have had cancer for 5 or 10 years before it is diagnosed.
Thus, if cancer is diagnosed at an earlier and earlier state, there
will be a higher and higher percentage of people who live for 5
years between diagnoses and death. By simply diagnosing the disease
earlier, "cure rates" go up, even if chemotherapy doesn't improve
life expectancy at all!
This is undoubtedly the reason the American Cancer Society (an
orthodox medicine controlled "charity") has been pushing women to
get mammograms every year, in spite of the fact that mammograms can
cause cancer because they are X-Rays. Thus, the American Cancer
Society has had a positive affect on "cure rates" without having
done anything about life expectancy.
Another trick orthodox medicine uses is to ignore counting people
who die because of the damage done by chemotherapy and radiation.
For example, someone who dies of
pneumonia, as a result of their immune system being destroyed by
chemotherapy, is generally not counted as a "cancer" death.
Likewise, someone whose liver is destroyed by chemotherapy, and dies
of liver "disease," is also not counted as a "cancer" death.
Some cancers are extremely slow growing. Thus, "cure rates" for
these types of cancer look very good, but not because the people are
cured, but because the cancer is slow growing.
Since many people who are on chemotherapy die of malnutrition and
opportunistic infections, many doctors tell their cancer patients to
take nutritional supplements. This can lead to the person living
longer (because they do not die as quickly from malnutrition or
opportunistic infections), but it makes chemotherapy look better!
other words, "cure rates" go up because of the nutritional
supplements, but the effects of chemotherapy may have been
Some patients secretly take alternative treatments to treat their
cancer without telling their doctors (during or after orthodox
treatments). This makes orthodox medicine survival rates look good,
but not because of chemotherapy or radiation.
Another trick is to change the standards for what kind of people are
part of the statistics.
In other words, if they start including
people with less severe cancers (which obviously have a higher "cure
rate"), they can get their "cure rate" numbers up.
"The five year cancer survival
statistics of the American Cancer Society are very misleading.
They now count things that are not cancer, and, because we are
able to diagnose at an earlier stage of the disease, patients
falsely appear to live longer. Our whole cancer research in the
past 20 years has been a failure. More people over 30 are dying
from cancer than ever before…
More women with mild or benign
diseases are being included in statistics and reported as being
"cured". When government officials point to survival figures and
say they are winning the war against cancer they are using those
survival rates improperly."
Dr J. Bailer, New England
Journal of Medicine
(Dr Bailer’s answer to questions
put by Neal Barnard MD of the Physicians Committee For
Responsible Medicine and published in PCRM Update, Sept/Oct
By using these tricks they can make it
appear that cancer research is progressing slowly, when in fact
cancer research has made very little overall improvements in life
expectancy or quality of life in the past 100 years.
A Valid Definition of Cure Rate
So how should "cure rates" be defined?
Here is my definition:
Definition of Cure Rate:
"a person is cured of their cancer
by treatment if they do not die of cancer, and if they do not
die of something caused directly or indirectly by their cancer,
and if they do not die from the side-effects of the treatment,
and if they do not die indirectly from the side-effects of their
treatment. All treatment statistics using life expectancy
require that the treatment be compared to no treatment at all
under the same detection criteria."
Using such a statistic would expose just
how useless chemotherapy and radiation are.
But you will never see this definition
used with chemotherapy and radiation because orthodox medicine likes
to hide behind bogus statistics, just like the B companies above.
It would be very logical for cancer researchers to use a valid
definition of "cure rate," like the one I just mentioned, and do a
double-blind study between patients who took the complete orthodox
treatment plan and a second group who refused all treatments (Note:
This would technically not be a double-blind study, but it would
yield valuable data.)
The results of such a study would never
be widely publicized, because orthodox medicine would look very bad.
In the history of medicine, cancer surgery will go down as one of
the most damaging treatments ever perpetuated on an innocent general
While it is true that if a person's
cancer has not metastasized, surgery can kill all of the cancer
cells, there are several problems with mindlessly using cancer
First, by the time cancer is diagnosed, unless it is benign, it has
probably already spread outside of its original area and thus cancer
surgery does not kill all of the spreading cancer cells.
Let me give a simple metaphor. Suppose you have thousands of flies
on your 10 acre farm. Suppose that most of them are around the horse
corral where there is lots of horse manure. Suppose one day you take
all of the horse manure (which contains many maggots) and put it in
plastic bags (i.e. surgery) and ship it to a landfill. Will this
cure your fly problem? Not at all.
Since all of the flies have not been
killed, it will not take long for the remaining flies to breed and
replace all of the flies and maggots killed by the plastic bags.
Second, if the cancer has not spread, the patient has so long to
live in most cases, that the cancer can easily be treated by any
number of noninvasive alternative methods. Virtually all of the top
100 alternative treatments are extremely effective if the patient
has over a year to live. Thus, even if the cancer is contained,
surgery can be a poor choice.
Third, surgery severs numerous blood arteries, thus blocking them
forever. This means the circulatory system is forever damaged with
numerous blocked arteries and other arteries have had their blood
supply cut off.
Fourth, in a similar manner, surgery does the same thing to the
lymph system. The lymph system is a critical part of the immune
system, as is the circulatory system, and arbitrarily blocking
numerous lymph vessels permanently is not a good thing for the
Considering all of the permanent damage done by surgery, it is
extremely rare when surgery is a cancer patient's best option.
... Now go back to your three answers at the beginning of this
chapter. How did you do?
Back to Contents
Chapter 5 -
The Approval of Chemotherapy Drugs
The Approval of Chemotherapy Drugs
You might think that a study proving increased life expectancy
(versus no treatment at all) would be required for a chemotherapy
drug to be approved by the FDA.
Such proof is not required.
We now have to add another player to our story, and it is a
government agency. Suppose there is a government agency that decides
which car companies can manufacture automobiles. Suppose that the B
companies, because of their vast size and money, combined with the
natural corruption in government, totally controls this government
The high ranking agency employees are
routinely "placed" into lucrative jobs by the B companies when they
quit the government. And suppose there are many other perks for the
government workers by the B companies.
Suppose also that the majority of the members of Congress in this
metaphor were either stupid, corrupt or incompetent and they let the
government agency do whatever it wanted.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And
suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself."
Mark Twain: Manuscript
note, c. 1882
With this in mind, I will tell you how
drugs get approved.
They study how the chemotherapy drug
"shrinks tumors" or reduces some benchmark which is supposed to be
an indication that the cancer is being defeated. Neither of these
things have anything to do with life expectancy. They may or may not
indicate whether cancer cells are being killed, but they don't
predict life expectancy.
They are meaningless numbers. It is like
the B companies claiming they are making safer and safer automobiles
because the paint on their cars resists sunlight better and better.
Fading paint has nothing to do with how long an engine lasts.
This is what the FDA says, on its own web site, about the approval
of a chemotherapy drug:
"Accelerated approval is a program
the FDA developed to make new drug products available for life
threatening diseases when they appeared to provide a benefit
over available therapy (which could mean there was no existing
Under this program, Iressa is
approved on the basis of early clinical study evidence (such as
tumor shrinkage) suggesting that the drug is reasonably likely
to have a valuable effect on survival or symptoms. The approval
is granted on the condition that the manufacturer must continue
testing to demonstrate that the drug indeed provides therapeutic
benefit [i.e. tumor shrinkage] to the patient.
If it does not, the FDA can withdraw
the product from the market more easily than usual.
How many clinical trials were performed with Iressa and what did
they show? The study on which the FDA based it approval included
216 patients, 139 of whom had failed treatment with two other
chemotherapy treatments. In this trial, approximately 10% of
patients responded to Iressa with a decrease in tumor size.
The sponsor also presented to the FDA the results of two large
(about 1000 patients each) clinical studies with Iressa as
initial therapy for lung cancer. In these studies all patients
received the standard combination chemotherapy and were randomly
given, in addition, either Iressa or a placebo.
In these studies
there was no effect of Iressa on survival [versus the placebo],
time to further growth of cancer, or on tumor size."
In other words, in two large studies
this drug demonstrated absolutely no increase in survival of cancer
It was approved because in other trials
10% of the patients had a decrease in tumor size.
Increased Survival Time
But let's suppose that this particular drug had "increased the
survival time" of the patients in a study.
Finally, you say, proof that
chemotherapy works, I can get back to my chemotherapy. Not so fast.
What does it mean to say that a chemotherapy drug "increased the
It means that it increased the survival time of patients relative to
some other chemotherapy drug or some other combination of
chemotherapy drugs!! In other words, to my knowledge, never in the
history of medicine has a drug company proven that their drug
extends the life of a patient relative to the avoidance of all
"Survival time" is only measured by
comparing one or more chemotherapy drugs to one or more other
combinations of chemotherapy drugs.
In other words, this government agency effectively would allows the
B companies approval of their cars as long as they can prove their
car model is better than a car model from another B company! In
other words, the B companies don't have to compare their cars to one
of the G company models, only to B company models. If a Company B2
model has a better rear view mirror than a Company B4 model rear
view mirror, then it can get approved by the government agency.
Likewise, chemotherapy drugs only have to be compared to other
chemotherapy drugs. They do not have to be compared to "no
treatment" or "treatment refused" patients, only to other
chemotherapy drugs. Nor do they have to be compared to alternative
treatments for cancer, such as the Kelley Metabolic therapy.
Study this next quote carefully!
"We have a multi-billion dollar
industry that is killing people, right and left, just for
financial gain. Their idea of research is to see whether two
doses of this poison is better than three doses of that poison."
Dr Glen Warner, M.D.
In other words, all "scientific
evidence" for chemotherapy drugs is to compare them to each other or
to see if a tumor shrinks or to see if some benchmark changes.
Never is chemotherapy compared to
alternative treatments nor is it ever compared to no treatment at
all. This type of deception is designed to give the public the
impression that chemotherapy drugs are constantly improving and soon
chemotherapy drugs will actually cure cancer. Nonsense, the
chemotherapy drugs are only being compared to each other.
What is getting better over the years is
their techniques of deception.
"If you can shrink the tumor 50% or
more for 28 days you have got the FDA's definition of an active
That is called a response rate, so
you have a response... (but) when you look to see if there is
any life prolongation from taking this treatment what you find
is all kinds of hocus pocus and song and dance about the disease
free survival, and this and that.
In the end there is no proof that
chemotherapy in the vast majority of cases actually extends
life, and this is the GREAT LIE about chemotherapy, that somehow
there is a correlation between shrinking a tumor and extending
the life of the patient."
Using the car example, when will the B
company cars equal the G company cars in quality?
The answer is never because the B
company cars are only compared to other B company cars. Since the
1940s there has been virtually zero meaningful progress in
chemotherapy drugs. The next 100 years will see about the same
improvement as the last 60 years.
Dr. Philip Binzel, an M.D. who used laetrile therapy (one of
the commonly used alternative treatments), was asked to take part in
a study comparing orthodox medicine to natural medicine. He was
exited to participate in the study, here was his chance to prove
alternative medicine was far superior to orthodox medicine.
I quote from his book:
"During this period of time, the
National Cancer Institute (NCI) stated that it wanted to run a
study to show the difference between patients treated with
orthodox therapy (surgery, radiation, chemotherapy) and those
treated with nutritional therapy.
I was asked to participate in this
study. I went to New York to meet with one of the doctors who
was conducting the study. I will call him Dr. Enseeye (not his
real name, of course). There was a group of perhaps six or seven
of us who had dinner that night with Dr. Enseeye. Betty [Dr.
Binzel's wife] and I were seated next to him.
Dr. Enseeye explained the study to me. The NCI would take a
group of cancer patients and treat them in the orthodox method.
Those of us who were using nutritional therapy would take a
similar group of patients and treat them by our method. The NCI
would then compare the results.
This is the conversation that
"What will the NCI use as a
criteria for success or failure in these treatments?" I
"Tumor size," Dr. Enseeye replied.
"Let me make sure I understand
what you are saying. Suppose you have a patient with a given
tumor. Let's suppose that this patient is treated by one of
these two methods. Let's say that the tumor is greatly
reduced in size in the next three months, but the patient
dies. How will the NCI classify that?
"The NCI will classify that as a success."
"Why?" I asked.
"Because the tumor got smaller," he replied.
I then asked,
"Suppose you have a similar
patient with a similar tumor who was treated with a
different method. Suppose that after two years this patient
is alive and well, but the tumor is no smaller. How will the
NCI classify this?"
"They will classify that as a failure."
"Why?" I asked.
"Because the tumor did not get any smaller," he said. Dr.
Enseeye went on to say, "In this study the NCI will not be
interested in whether the patient lives or dies. They will
be interested only in whether the tumor gets bigger or
I chose not to participate in this
Philip Binzel -
Alive and Well -
This example also demonstrates by far
the most important statistical lie of orthodox medicine.
They lie to the public by suppressing
the valid "cure rates" of alternative treatments of cancer. Using
the above definition of "cure rate" would show the vast superiority
of alternative medicine over orthodox medicine.
The best possible way for the B companies to look good is to totally
suppress any statistics that compare the B companies to the G
companies, especially for long-term numbers (such as how long did
the engine last).
In an earlier chapter I mentioned that Vitamin C is a superior
treatment to chemotherapy. Orthodox medicine now recommends that
Vitamin C should not be given to a patient while they are taking
chemotherapy. I agree.
Should you drop the Vitamin C or the
chemotherapy? I would drop the chemotherapy and keep the Vitamin C.
Of course read my entire tutorial on
alternative treatments before doing anything (there are warnings,
among other things).
Let me summarize this discussion:
The B companies (i.e. orthodox
medicine) want to only use the statistic of what percentage
of their cars have their original engine after 30,000 miles
(i.e. what percentage of patients live for 5 years between
diagnoses and death). This avoids letting the public know
their cars are pieces of junk.
They suppress any useful
statistics that involve cars made by the G companies (i.e.
orthodox medicine suppresses valid cure rates for
alternative medicine). This avoids letting the public know
that the G companies build much superior cars.
The government agency that
regulates the automobile industry, like all government
agencies, sells their services to the highest bidder, namely
the B companies. Thus the B companies are legally protected
by Congress (i.e. chemotherapy drugs are legally protected
by the FDA and Congress). I have simplified this part of the
They also get the government to
approve their car safety performance because the paint
resists sunlight better and better every year (i.e. they use
tumor size shrinkage to judge chemotherapy drugs). This
gives the public the impression that their cars are getting
better and better, and that the government supports their
claims that they are superior.
They only compare their car
models to other car models made by other B companies (i.e.
orthodox medicine refuses to compare the Big 3 side-by-side
with alternative medicine, or no treatments at all, using
valid measurements of life expectance and quality of life).
This gives the public the impression that the B companies
will soon be making cars just as good as the G companies.
But of course they never mention the G companies.
Back to Contents
Chapter 6 - The Scientific Evidence For Alternative Medicine
Is There Scientific Evidence For
Alternative Treatments For Cancer?
The documented evidence that
alternative treatments have put tens of thousands of people into
remission (i.e. cured them) cannot be denied.
The most viable of this evidence comes
from the doctors and others who treated these people. In many cases,
such as Kelley, the medical establishment had unrestricted access to
their records. If their records had not been in good shape, at the
time they were examined, you can rest assured the medical
establishment would have blasted this information from the
The Mexican clinics actually claim to have had far more patients
than any of the American doctors, for the simple reason that the
American alternative treatment doctors were hounded by the medical
authorities, and some of them fled to Mexico, but in most cases the
technology went to Mexico.
Actually some of the best technology was
developed by Mexican doctors.
It is not uncommon for alternative health doctors to have documented
cure rates of 75% to 85% and higher. Dr. Binzel had 288 patients who
qualified for statistical analysis. This number represents 30 types
of primary cancer and 23 types of cancer that had metastasized. His
overall cure rate was 80.9%. Only a handful of his patients died of
This cure rate is fairly typical for
alternative health practitioners. Some doctors had higher cure rates
and some less, depending on a number of factors.
I quote from a web site regarding a Dr. Kelley:
"The Medical Establishment has for
many years endeavored to discredit Dr. Kelley’s most successful
Cancer Paradigm developed in 1963.
A medical journalist obtained
authorization under the guidance and direction of Dr. Robert A
Good, Ph.D., M.D. president of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer
Center in New York City to review Dr. Kelley’s records. The
objective of the Medical Establishment was to prove beyond a
shadow of doubt, that Dr. Kelley was an unorthodox quack.
Dr. Kelley’s objective was to prove
beyond a shadow of doubt that the Kelley Paradigm is the only
scientific basis for the Cure of Cancer. Dr. Kelley had some
33,000 well-documented medical records of his cancer patients.
The documentation was so overwhelming this Study continued for
over 5 years... The study was approached from two general
parameters. [The] first parameter was for all types of Cancer.
The results indicated a 93% cure
rate, after their physicians dismissed the patients, stating no
further orthodox medical therapy could be helpful for them. In
other words, their disease processes had exceeded the
therapeutic limits of Orthodox Medicine and they could no longer
be helped. Thus the standard Orthodox Death Sentence - go home
In the Second parameter of the
study, there was a 100% cure rate for Pancreatic Cancer Patients
who carefully, faithfully and completely followed Dr. Kelley’s
The Orthodox Medical Cure Rate for
Pancreatic Cancer is [virtually] 0%."
Dr. Binzel used laetrile therapy and Dr.
Kelley used metabolic therapy.
These types of therapies are somewhat
similar, except for the coffee enema which is used only in metabolic
So how does the medical establishment deal with the undeniable fact
that tens of thousands of people, just in America and Mexico, have
been cured of cancer, and tens of thousands more in Europe
(especially Germany) and other places have been so cured?
They do this by saying that these patients went into "spontaneous
remission." The word "spontaneous" is quite interesting. What do
they mean? They mean that it was a pure coincidence. In other words,
they might as well have called it "coincidental remission" or
"accidental remission" or "unexplainable remission."
From the viewpoint of a statistician (and I spent 3 years as a
statistician), what this implies is that whether you have been on
alternative treatments or not, there is an equal probability that
you will go into "spontaneous remission."
I will try to explain this in a non-statistical manner.
Suppose we take the "set" (i.e. the group) of all cancer patients
who have taken surgery, chemotherapy and radiation treatments, and
their doctors have exhausted all hope and sent them home to die.
Since millions of orthodox cancer patients have died of cancer, we
know the size of this set is in the millions.
Now let us break this master set (i.e. "population" is the correct
term) down into three subsets:
Set A) Those who never went on
any significant alternative treatment plan.
Set B) Those who went on an
aggressive alternative treatment plan, and had more than 12
months to live when they were sent home. (Note: The "12
months" figure is somewhat of an average, it varies between
doctors depending on a number of factors.) Actually, we will
generally talk about Group B as being the Binzel and Kelley
Set C) Everyone in the original
master set that does not fit into Set A or Set B.
Now I am going to have to get a little
technical. We first must have a "hypothesis" to test.
So let us develop a hypothesis for the
"if we calculate the percentage of
people who go into spontaneous remission in each of these three
sets, there will not be a statistically significant difference
in the percentage of people who go into spontaneous remission
between the three sets."
As an example of this concept, if the
people of Set A have a spontaneous remission rate of 1%, then we
would expect the patients in Set B and Set C to also have a 1% rate
of spontaneous remission.
That is what the medical community means
when they talk about "spontaneous remission."
This hypothesis, in fact, is what the medical establishment would
like you to believe by believing the concept of "spontaneous
remission." With this hypothesis in hand, they can claim that there
is "no scientific evidence" for alternative treatments for cancer.
But is the hypothesis statistically sound?
Let us consider Group A. There are millions of people in the past
100 years that have fit into Group A. Millions. It is very rare when
one of these people goes into spontaneous remission. In other words,
these patients were sent home to die by their doctor, and after
being sent home to die, very few of them were suddenly and
unexpectedly cured of their cancer and went into "spontaneous
Using a percentage, it is far less than
1%. But since we don't have an exact figure, let us be very, very
generous to orthodox medicine and say it is 1%.
definition the people in Group A were never involved in an
alternative treatment. What I am saying is that far less than 1% of
the people in Group A, who were sent home to die, and did not
secretly go on an alternative program, were suddenly cured of their
cancer. I am not counting those who secretly went on an alternative
program and went into remission.)
There are tens of thousands of Americans who fall into Group B.
Many of them have been treated by
medical doctors or other health professionals and many of them have
had to treat themselves. But let us focus on the patients of Dr.
Binzel and Dr. Kelley because the medical establishment had
unrestricted access to their records (Kelley) or were offered access
to their records (Binzel).
According to the medical establishment's hypothesis, the percentage
of people in Group B that have gone into spontaneous remission
should be about 1%. To understand how statistics works, at a 99%
confidence level, looking only at the Binzel and Kelley patients, if
1.2% of the people in this group went into spontaneous remission, we
would reject the hypothesis of orthodox medicine.
In other words, if the cure rate for the patients of Drs. Binzel and
Kelley was 1.2% or greater, a statistician would reject the above
hypothesis and say that it was not a coincidence that they had such
a high cure rate. In fact, if their cure rate had been 2%, most
professional statisticians would not even bother to do the
calculation, they would simply look at the sample size and reject
the hypothesis as being ridiculous.
So what was their cure rate? Over 92%. In other words, if their cure
rate had been 1.2% we would reject the hypothesis of orthodox
medicine. If it had been 2%, we would have laughed at their
hypothesis. But it is 92%!
The hypothesis is far, far beyond
Let us summarize the figures:
Group A) Millions of people in
this set, 1% spontaneous remission rate, and that is being
Group B) More than 33,000
patients in this set, with a verified spontaneous remission
rate of over 92%.
Now, if you know a statistician, take
these numbers to him or her and have them calculate whether the
original hypothesis is tenable at a 99% confidence level.
I will save you the time, it is a
ludicrous hypothesis. Only a statistician right out of college would
even be so naive as to do the calculation. It is far beyond
ridiculous to even consider there is any credibility to the
hypothesis because it represents over 1,000 standard deviations from
When I worked at a market research company we presented data to our
clients when we had a sample size of 35 interviews (it is very
expensive to do interviews). True, the population size was only in
the hundreds, but to have millions of people in Group A and over
33,000 people in Group B, is a statistician's dream come true. To
look at the difference in spontaneous remission percentages, for
groups so large, yields the conclusion that the hypothesis is far
Thus, we will flatly, and hysterically, reject the hypothesis that
the Kelley and Binzel patients coincidentally went into spontaneous
(Note #1: Both
Dr. Kelley and Dr. Binzel used treatment protocols that were
designed primarily to build the immune system, and thus are
slow-developing techniques for people who had been on chemotherapy.
This is because people with cancer have weak immune systems to begin
with (or else they would not have gotten cancer in the first place),
and chemotherapy severely damages their immune system even more.
Thus, to use a treatment
technique that depends on a newly rebuilt immune system can take
several or many months to work. I mention this because Kelley did
not count (in his statistics) his patients who died in the first
12-18 months of treatment, and Binzel did not count his patients who
died in the first 6-12 months of treatment. In short, these patients
were too far gone to be cured using a technique that rebuilds the
immune system and thus were not counted in their statistics.)
(Note #2: On this website I mention several times that the
overall "cure rate" of alternative medicine experts, on patients who
have had extensive orthodox cancer treatments and have been sent
home to die, is about 50%. Does this mean that Kelley and Binzel had
better treatments? No, the difference is that the statistics are
For example, we count all
patients, even if they die in the first week of treatment; whereas
Kelley and Binzel did not count many of the cancer patients who died
in their statistics. Current treatments are significantly more
effective than the treatments Kelley and Binzel used, in fact
current treatments are so good every patient is counted.)
Another one of the theories of the medical establishment is that
there is some psychological phenomenon that causes theses people to
believe they will go into remission, and thus they do go into
I will call this "psychological
First of all, let's suppose there is a psychological phenomenon that
causes these people to go into remission. Then let's use it for all
cancer patients. In other words, if we can convince cancer patients
sent home to die that alternative treatments work, and if by doing
this over 92% of the patients sent home to die are suddenly cured
(even if the treatment is worthless), then let's do this for all
cancer patients sent home to die!!! It is a marvelous way to cure
Of course it is an absurd theory. If it were true, psychiatry could
easily develop a "suggestion" technique from this phenomenon and
could easily progress psychiatry into the position of curing all of
their patients with suggestions. They could then throw all of their
drugs in the trash can, where they belong. But alas, because of the
absurdity of this theory psychiatrists will continue to prescribe
mind-altering drugs, drugs and more drugs.
By the way, there are about 100 books
that criticize psychiatrists and their use of the drugs they use.
As an example of the "psychological remission" theory, let us take
the experiment in Scotland done by Dr. Cameron and Linus Pauling,
mentioned earlier. Dr. Cameron took a group of terminal cancer
patients who had not yet had chemotherapy, and instead of
chemotherapy gave them 10 grams (or more) of liquid Vitamin C a day,
every day for the rest of their lives.
These patients lived several times
longer than similar patients, with the same type of cancer and in
the same stage when treatment started, who had been on chemotherapy.
Since there was very little scientific evidence at the time about
Vitamin C and cancer (actually, this was the first Vitamin C
experiment in the world on patients who had not been through
chemotherapy), why would these patients think they would live
several times longer than the unfortunate patients in the medical
records who had taken orthodox treatments?
These were terminal patients, they were worried about getting their
affairs in order, not thinking about living several times longer
than expected. In fact, there was absolutely no reason for these
patients to "believe" they would live one second longer than the
prior patients in a similar condition who took orthodox treatments.
But let us return to Group A versus Group B.
People are so brainwashed by the medical
Why did anyone in Group A ever
get to the point that they were sent home to die? Patients
adore their oncologists, with all the big words they use.
Why didn't their confidence in
the medical establishment, formed over years and years of
watching soap operas and reading Reader's Digest, convince
them that these doctors could cure them?
Why would Group B patients have
any psychological advantage over the patients in Group A?
In fact, the chemotherapy group would
have had a huge psychological advantage!!
In addition, the medical establishment had brainwashed many of the
Group B patients (before they sent them home to die) into believing
that all alternative practitioners are quacks.
Thus, if the Group B patients believed
their new doctors were quacks, why would they suddenly go into
I could go on, but the absurdity of the two theories of the medical
establishment is beyond the ability of the English language to
adequately convey. Words like "ludicrous" are so weak.
But now let's us look at it this way. There has never, ever, been a
drug company that submitted a cancer drug to the FDA that had even
1,000th the statistical evidence (to extend life compared to no
treatment) to support that drug, than the scientific evidence for
alternative treatments for cancer. The statistics they use are full
of deception. Drugs are approved on the basis of their ability to
shrink tumors and by comparing one toxic poison to another toxic
poison, things which have absolutely nothing to do with proving an
extension of life or improving life.
If you compared the valid scientific evidence for orthodox
treatments for cancer versus the valid scientific evidence for
alternative treatments for cancer (using valid cure rates, not tumor
shrinkage), the overwhelming, gigantic, colossal scientific evidence
favors the alternative treatment industry.
The "cure rates" for orthodox medicine are high only because of
deception. They evaluate the patients five years after diagnosis,
not until they die. They ignore patients who die of chemotherapy
related illness, etc.
The "cure rates" for some of Dr.
Binzel's patients were determined 18 years after treatment! He did
not use the orthodox definition of "cure."
It is the most important job of the
NCI to make sure
there is "no scientific evidence" for alternative treatments. But
there is scientific evidence. The scientific evidence for
alternative treatments can be compared to a ship the size of the
Queen Mary II.
The scientific evidence for orthodox
treatments, by comparison, would be compared to a ship that could
fit in a bathtub. I am not exaggerating. Yet the FDA says
chemotherapy and orthodox medicine "has" scientific evidence and
there is "no scientific evidence" for alternative treatments. It is
nothing but pure corruption, it is nothing but lies.
It is all about rigging the rules to
favor orthodox medicine.
Even More Scientific Evidence
Now let's compare apples to apples.
Let us use the same definition of "cure
rate" for both the orthodox establishment and the alternative health
people. Because virtually all of Dr. Binzel's patients and virtually
all of Dr. Kelley's patients had been on chemotherapy before they
went to see these doctors, we can assume that if these same patients
had not had chemotherapy and radiation treatments, Binzel and Kelley
would have had an even higher cure rate!
In other words, if Binzel and Kelley can cure 92% of their patients
who were on chemotherapy and were sent home to die, then we can
logically conclude they could have cured at least 92% of these same
patients if they had gone to Binzel and Kelley directly, meaning
without going to their orthodox doctors first.
Let me explain this another way.
We know these 33,000 cancer patients had
an overall cure rate of 92% after most of the patients had been on
chemotherapy, thus we can logically conclude that if these same
patients had seen Dr. Binzel or Dr. Kelley instead of their orthodox
doctors, that first, Dr. Binzel and Dr. Kelley would have had more
time to work with these patients, and second, Dr. Binzel and Dr.
Kelley could have cured more of their patients because their immune
system had not been destroyed previously.
Thus they would have had a cure rate
much higher than 92%. But let's use 92% anyway.
So using either definition of cure rate, what is the cure rate of
orthodox medicine? They claim it is about 50%. They lie for reasons
I have mentioned elsewhere. But let's lie too and use 50%.
Now this is what we have:
Group A) Millions of people in
this set, a cure rate of no more than 50% (probably less
than 3% for metastasis cases, if you take into account
cancer deaths after the fifth year and cancer-related and
Group B) Over 33,000 people in
this set, a cure rate of at least 92%, probably much higher.
Now if we believe the FDA, our original
hypothesis would have been that orthodox medicine (Group A) would
have a statistically significant higher cure rate than Group B.
Looking at the data, a laughing hyena,
who knew statistics, would laugh itself to death over this
Remember that Binzel and Kelley had a 92% cure rate on patients sent
home to die by orthodox medicine or they had at least some
chemotherapy! Their immune system had been destroyed, their vital
organs had been damaged, and valuable time had been lost before
going to these doctors. Yet they still had over a 92% cure rate
using the alternative definition!
The hypothesis that orthodox medicine is better than alternative
medicine is simply a lie.
It is one layer of deception on top of
another layer of deception on top of another layer.
There Is Overwhelming Scientific
Evidence For Alternative Treatments
Is there scientific evidence that alternative treatments work?
Absolutely, I just gave it to you.
Suppose the original hypothesis had
"alternative doctors and treatments
are so good they have a higher cure rate than orthodox doctors,
even after the orthodox doctors have destroyed the immune system
of their patients and lost valuable time for the alternative
doctors and the orthodox doctors have sent their patients home
Had that been our hypothesis, the
statistics would have easily supported this hypothesis.
We come to several conclusions in this
First, on an equal footing,
alternative medicine is statistically far, far superior to
Second, for over 33,000 patients
that orthodox medicine could not cure, and sent them home to
die, Dr. Binzel and Dr. Kelley cured over 92% of them. This
alone should be adequate scientific evidence for the
efficacy of alternative medicine.
Third, there is absolutely no
scientific justification for the FDA to have ever approved
any orthodox treatment for cancer. Any time they approve one
of these drugs, they are ignoring every possible evidence of
Fourth, when the FDA, etc.,
medical establishment says there is no scientific evidence
for alternative medicine, they are lying.
So how does the FDA, NIH, NCI, AMA, ACS,
etc. suppress the statistically overwhelming evidence for
alternative treatments for cancer?
By ignoring it (i.e. blacklisting it)
and babbling about their concepts of "spontaneous remission" and
what I call "psychological remission." The pharmaceutical industry
controls the media due to their massive advertising dollars, thus
there is no way for the general public to ever know the truth.
That is so important I am going to say
it again. The pharmaceutical industry controls the media due to
their massive advertising dollars, thus there is no way for the
general public to ever know the truth.
The FDA are liars. It is no wonder that they love to raid the
medical offices of alternative practitioners and confiscate (i.e.
destroy) their medical records.
You should know that a medical doctor risks jail time and their
medical license for recommending or using alternative treatments for
cancer, even though the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in
favor of alternative treatments. The judicial system has
demonstrated itself to be largely unable to right this wrong. The
pharmaceutical industry has a very, very, very deep pocket, and they
can keep appealing judgments until they find an inept or corrupt
Considering that judges are frequently
appointed by corrupt politicians, it doesn't take long to find an
inept or corrupt judge.
More on Chemotherapy and Remission
In a previous chapter I made it clear that in order for chemotherapy
(and, of course, radiation therapy), to be justified as a treatment
for cancer, it had to provide a significant extension of life to its
patients compared to no treatment at all and compared to every
alternative treatment for cancer.
In other words, its "length of life
since diagnosis" (quantity of life) had to be significantly greater
than the "length of life since diagnosis" of those who rejected all
treatments and orthodox treatments had to yield a significantly
greater "length of life since diagnosis" than any and all
alternative treatments for cancer.
What is the evidence?
The evidence is that alternative treatments for cancer, at least the
Kelley and Binzel plans, provide a significantly greater "length of
life since diagnosis" than orthodox treatments. Thus, and understand
this clearly, there is no scientific evidence that can justify the
use of orthodox treatments for cancer! The evidence is clearly that
chemotherapy and radiation should not be used because they destroy
the immune system, etc.
Thus we must also conclude that the concept of "remission" does NOT
equate to a significantly higher "length of life since diagnosis" as
compared to the treatments of Kelley and Binzel.
Thus we must logically and statistically flatly reject the concept
that "remission" proves that orthodox medicine is justified in its
massive and excessive costs, extreme pain, extreme sickness,
destruction of the immune system, etc. for its patients.
While the statements in this
eBook tend to glorify the treatments of Pauling, Binzel and Kelley,
in fact all of these treatments have been far surpassed in
The reader should not drop what they are doing and take a metabolic
protocol or a laetrile protocol or a Vitamin C protocol. While the
original protocols of these three men have been improved, the best
of the best alternative cancer treatments today either do not use
any of these three protocols or only a small percentage of the new
protocols overlap the three protocols of Pauling, Binzel and Kelley.
These men were giants in their day, and I do not mean to downplay
their contributions to science.
But I should also admit that the giants
of today are standing on the shoulders of the giants of the past.
Back to Contents
Chapter 7 - Cancer Research
Cancer Research Today
The reason progress stopped in curing cancer is because
pharmaceutical companies cannot patent natural substances, and it is
patents that allow them to make their billions of dollars in
With a patent you have no competition,
meaning you can charge whatever the "market" will pay. In other
words, if a treatment for cancer came along that used only vitamins,
minerals, enzymes, etc., all from nature, the pharmaceutical
industry would not make any money on this treatment plan, or if they
owned a vitamin company (which some of them do), they would not make
They only make gigantic profits on treatment plans that use their
man-made chemicals. Plus it is more profitable for them to treat
symptoms than to treat causes.
pharmaceutical industry uses
their vast wealth to pay others to suppress and crush the truth
about alternative treatments for cancer.
There are literally hundreds of molecules that occur in nature that
can kill cancer cells or stop the metastasis (spread) of cancer.
Some of these are used by the pharmaceutical industry to design
their mutated molecules. But the pharmaceutical industry is not
interested in promoting the unmutated molecules that occur in
nature, because they cannot be patented. They must isolate one of
these molecules and then figure out a way to modify it so they can
But these molecules are extremely
complex and it is not easy to synthesize them and modify them and
still maintain their safety and effectiveness.
"Everyone should know that most
cancer research is largely a fraud and that the major cancer
research organizations are derelict in their duties to the
people who support them."
Linus Pauling PhD (the
world's only two-time unshared Nobel Prize winner)
Since the 1920s, more than 400 natural
treatments for cancer have been developed that are far superior to
surgery, chemotherapy and radiation.
Every one of these treatment plans,
which yield better cure rates and less pain, have been brutally
suppressed by the pharmaceutical industry,
the AMA (American Medical
Association, which is effectively a labor union),
the FDA (Food and
Drug Administration) and its predecessors, and the medical
"There is not one, but many cures
for cancer available. But they are all being systematically
suppressed by the ACS, the NCI and the major oncology centres.
They have too much of an interest in the status quo."
Dr Robert Atkins, M.D.
While the FDA and AMA get all the
attention for suppressing alternative cures for cancer, in fact it
is the media which is the major suppressor.
Their major tactic is blacklisting cures
for cancer and glorifying medical doctors who prescribe drugs. The
television shows which glorify medical doctors are nothing but
television shows designed to get people to run to their doctor every
time they get sick, and thus buy drugs.
But there is an even bigger issue here. Are the pharmaceutical
companies even looking for a cure for cancer? Let us suppose they
were able to modify one of the natural molecules and totally cure
cancer in a patient in a matter of days. Would they make this
substance known to the world? They would not because patents are
only for a fixed number of years.
When this number of years is up, it
could be made generic and that would be the end of their gravy
"A solution to cancer would mean the
termination of research programs, the obsolescence of skills,
the end of dreams of personal glory, triumph over cancer would
dry up contributions to self-perpetuating charities... It would
mortally threaten the present clinical establishments by
rendering obsolete the expensive surgical, radiological and
chemotherapeutic treatments in which so much money, training and
equipment is invested...
The new therapy must be disbelieved,
denied, discouraged and disallowed at all costs, regardless of
actual testing results, and preferably without any testing at
Robert Houston and Gary
This alliance or conspiracy has totally
stopped progress in the treatment of cancer. Instead of looking for
cures for cancer outside of the "Big 3" (surgery, chemotherapy,
radiation), virtually all research is based on gradually "improving"
and "perfecting" the Big 3 or on equally profitable man-made
substances that do not selectively kill cancer cells. In this way
there is always a cure "just around the corner."
The old "carrot and stick" trick is
alive and well.
"Finding a cure for cancer is
absolutely contraindicated by the profits of the cancer
industry’s chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery cash trough."
Dr Diamond, M.D.
Virtually all cancer surgery is
Chemotherapy is nothing but toxic
sludge, yet the medical community is spending a vast, vast
percentage of their research money on "perfecting" this virtually
useless cancer treatment plan. Knowing how much damage chemotherapy
does to the immune system, the person's vital organs, the person's
DNA, etc. is yet another absurdity in the "scientific evidence" that
is used to get the FDA to approve the toxic chemotherapy sludge.
Radiation treatments simply burn the cancer cells to death, and burn
the patient as well.
"Twenty years from now we will look
back at chemotherapy and radiation as [being as] barbaric as
Steve Millett, manager of
technology forecasts for Battelle
If I were to list the 50 most proven
treatments for cancer (proven to be effective and safe), from among
all treatments for cancer, chemotherapy and radiation would not be
on that list.
Nor would they be in the top 200. Yet,
it is research on chemotherapy and radiation treatments (and more
recently DNA research) that dominate medical research today. The
money spent on chemotherapy and radiation should be spent on
studying the 50
most proven treatment plans, but that will never
Another reason the existing viable treatment plans have been
suppressed is because virtually all of the 50 best treatment plans
are very inexpensive compared to the Big 3. I will translate that
into English: less profits and less income for everyone from the
pharmaceutical industry to doctors to hospitals to insurance
companies, and so on.
The "Top 50" are far more effective
treatments, less painful and far safer treatments, but the deciding
factor is this: less profitable.
"It is difficult to get a man to
understand something when his salary depends upon his not
So why is the well-funded cancer
research intentionally headed in the wrong direction?
If I were to list the 50 overall most
expensive and most profitable treatments for cancer, not only would
chemotherapy, radiation and surgery be at the top of this list
(along with other orthodox treatments), but for a typical cancer
patient, an orthodox treatment plan would be more expensive than
almost all 50 of the most effective and safest treatments -
While it is true that the pharmaceutical industry has provided
America with a marvelous standard of health, the pharmaceutical
industry has gone into areas it has no business being in, in order
to enhance its "earnings per share."
It would be safe to say that virtually
all (but not all) cancer research today is a search for ever more
expensive and ever more profitable treatments for cancer.
Gene Therapy Research
Gene therapy, the current hot research topic, while theoretically
useful many years down the road, promises to be more expensive, and
just as useless overall in the short term, as interferon treatments.
"The human genome may go down in
history as the biggest white elephant for humanity. It cost a
lot and is useless, it does not work, and is so expensive to
maintain and grows so big so fast that it will bankrupt the
industry as well as entire nations...
The scientific establishment has
remained firmly wedded to genetic determinism, if only because
it is indispensable for business.
It is also fuelling the resurgence
of eugenics and genetic discrimination, and making even the most
unethical uses seem compelling, such as the creation of human
embryos to supply cells and tissues for transplant in so-called
‘therapeutic’ human cloning."
Mae-Wan Ho, Institute of
Science in Society
To understand this quote, consider that
the human DNA has between 45,000 and 60,000 genes.
These genes lead to the creation of
between 450,000 and 600,000 different proteins in the human body.
How long will it take, and how much will it cost, to study how all
of these proteins work together? When will we see cancer deaths
significantly reduced due to this technology? We will be bankrupt as
a country long before that happens!
The key issue with gene therapy is when is it going to save a
significant number of lives?
But there are even more basic questions.
Is gene therapy only going to be
used in conjunction with chemotherapy, guaranteeing the cash
cow for the pharmaceutical industry is not disturbed?
If a gene therapy technique were
ever found to cure over 50% of cancer patients successfully,
would the pharmaceutical industry and FDA suppress the
But it gets worse.
Gene therapy is expensive. If the money
spent on the exotic gene research were spent on the proven and
practical alternative treatments for cancer, cancer could be
eradicated within 10 years. (Note: It is equally important that this
money and research be controlled by alternative practitioners
instead of corrupt government officers and corrupt fundraisers.)
By doing this, cancer would be an
embarrassing footnote in history books.
In fact, it is the most ludicrous and asinine statement on earth to
note that the FDA allows human trials for gene therapy, but not for
natural substances (i.e. alternative medicine). There is no proof so
blatant as to the corruption in the FDA than this simple fact.
But it gets worse. There is an assumption in gene therapy that
cancer is caused by damaged genes. This is scientific nonsense.
It has been know for more than 100 years that cancer is caused by a
microbe which gets INSIDE normal cells and turns the cells
To make a long story short, the DNA of the microbe that causes the
cancer also alters the DNS of the now cancerous cell. Thus, cancer
cells may have DNA damage, but the damage does not cause cancer, it
is a result of the cause of cancer - namely a highly pleomorphic
cell-wall deficient bacteria.
See this article for more information on the scientific research
which was really looking for the cause of cancer:
Cancer Theory Article
Cancer Research Funding
Virtually all cancer research funding in the world today is
controlled by the pharmaceutical industry directly or indirectly
(i.e. indirectly via its political clout in Washington D.C. and
its control over such organizations as the ACS).
It is easy to see how they make
their decisions as to which projects to study. The more
expensive, the more exotic, and the projects with the least
potential for quick cures, get the money.
The pharmaceutical industry also controls most privately funded
research for cancer by suppressing the truth about cancer
treatments from the sponsors and administrators of these private
funds. Those handful of nonprofit organizations that claim to
research alternative treatments for cancer generally are run by
pro-orthodox people, thus neutralizing their purpose.
Hint: If you are going to fund a
nonprofit organization to support alternative medicine, make
sure its head person has a long history of fighting for
alternative medicine and fighting against the corruption in
orthodox medicine. Do not hire an M.D. who promises to "look
into alternative medicine with an open mind" or you are wasting
Some foundations, which are created by major owners of Big
Pharma stock, pretend to be charitable foundations, but in fact
they exist solely to control the kind of cancer research being
done, to insure it is in line with orthodox goals.
Any research funded by foundations
created by Big Pharma stockholders is going to be forced into
orthodox research, or they will lose their funding. This
includes medical schools.
In addition, the pharmaceutical industry has funded and
supported a large misinformation network on the internet. Scores
of web sites, including the quackwatch website, the ACS website,
the NCI (National Cancer Institute, a government agency)
website, etc. have nothing but misinformation about alternative
cancer treatment protocols.
The FDA and FTC (Federal Trade Commission) are doing everything
in their power to crush anyone who sells cancer treatments that
work (note: they also crush cancer treatments that don't work,
thus it appears to the public that every treatment plan they
crush doesn't work, but many of them do work - it is truly
unfortunate that there really are some quacks out there, the
quacks do their worst damage to society by giving orthodox
medicine the ammunition to make all alternative cancer
treatments, even the valid ones, look ineffective).
The AMA will yank the license of any
doctor that uses these treatment plans. The FDA and FTA are also
trying to shut down web sites that sell valid products that
I will say more about these things
"The thing that bugs me is
that the people think the FDA is protecting them. It isn't.
What the FDA is doing and what the public thinks it is doing
are as different as night and day."
Dr. Herbert Ley,
former FDA commissioner, 1970
Thus we have a situation where medical
progress came to a grinding halt over 100 years ago.
Heart disease prevention progress has
also stopped in its tracks. Considering the direction political
corruption is moving, progress will never start again. At the
current time there is an "information conspiracy" to crush the truth
about alternative treatments. But soon there will also be an
"availability conspiracy," meaning people will not be able to buy
the substances necessary to treat cancer with natural substances.
Corruption and greed are growing at an
alarming rate. And anyone who tries to slow it down is crushed.
media, of course, including Fox News, is the big problem. Their
carefully designed blacklisting of viable cancer treatments and
blacklisting of anyone who stands up for true alternative medicine,
is the main cause of the general public being so clueless.
There have been many books written on why you don't know about the
50 best treatment plans for cancer, such as:
World Without Cancer, by G.
The Healing of Cancer, by Barry
The Assault on Medical Freedom,
by P. Joseph Lisa
The Politics of Cancer
Revisited, by Samuel S. Epstein, M.D.
Unhealthy Charities - Hazardous
To Your Health and Wealth, by James T. Bennett and Thomas J.
...and many, many others.
The reason you don't know about any of these scores of books is
because they don't get any publicity in the media. When a book comes
out that makes orthodox medicine look good, it is likely to get lots
of free publicity in the media.
But not the books that support
alternative medicine and certainly not the books that expose the
corruption in Big Pharma and its puppets.
There is a little bit of good news, however. But it is only a little
bit of good news. There are pure alternative cancer research
organizations, such as the Independent Cancer Research Foundation
(ICRF) and the American Anti-Cancer Institute, among a few others. That is
the good news. The bad news is that these organizations have
virtually zero money for research and none of these organizations
has a single full-time cancer researcher as of this writing (April,
Since I belong to the ICRF, let me say that the ICRF board members
are responsible for 3 (and possibly 4) of the best 15 alternative
cancer treatments on earth. The research they are doing is
But they have far less than 1/10,000th
of the money of just the American Cancer Society.
Are you surprised?
Back to Contents
Chapter 8 -
Case Study of Media Corruption
Introduction to the Reader's Digest
I have been reading the Reader's Digest, that bastion of American
values, for several decades now. I love the jokes.
But over the years I have noticed a very
consistent pattern. It seems that every issue has gobs of
pharmaceutical ads, every issue has at least one article glorifying
some doctor, or at least the medical profession, and they never talk
about alternative medicine, except about the most basic nutrition,
which is pretty harmless to the pharmaceutical industry.
Just for example, in the June, 2003 issue, the following
pharmaceutical ads appear:
Lipitor (Pfizer) - 4 pages
(these types of ads generally include 1 or 2 pages of
information and warnings - but they have to pay for these
Prostate (Real Health
Laboratories) - 1 page
Advair (GlaxoSmithKline) - 3
Diabet Aid (Del Pharmaceuticals)
- 1 page
Zrytec (Pfizer) - 2 pages
Plavix (Bristol-Myers Squibb
Company) - 3 pages
Nexium (AstraZeneca) - 2 pages
Effexor XR (Wyeth) - 3 pages
Clarinex (Schering) - 3 pages
Synvisc (Wyeth) - 2 pages plus
another 1/2 page
Pharmaceuticals) - 1 page
That is 25 1/2 pages of space paid for
by the pharmaceutical industry.
Do you think that would buy some bias in
the Reader's Digest? It seems that the pattern I have observed over
the years proves that it does.
There were also three articles glorifying orthodox medicine: a
regular feature called: Medical Update, an article: Saving Michael
Bowen, and the book section: The Unlikely Gift.
There was also an article on Vitamin D, which was actually quite
good, and even talks about preventing colon cancer and possibly
other types of cancer. With the massive number of people taking
vitamins now, simple nutrition articles are almost mandated these
days in the mass media. The article also glorifies the National
Cancer Institute, as if they were a government agency with
They had to slip that in.
The Reader's Digest Book - Heart
Healthy For Life
As an example of how periodicals suppress the truth and lead people
astray, I wish to talk about a case study regarding a book written
by the Reader's Digest. This book is not about cancer, it is about
preventing heart disease.
Enter Linus Pauling, two time Nobel Prize winner. He and his
associates, and a Dr. Rath, developed a protocol for preventing
heart disease. It was, and is, a very successful prevention
But, as always, Linus forgot to
include Big Pharma profits in his program. Oops. His program has
been known about for years by a handful of people.
I quote from an internet site:
"With vitamin C consumption already
on the rise, after Nobelist Linus Pauling's book on Vitamin C
was published in 1970, the Linus Pauling Institute reports (and
www.quackwatch.com confirms), that average vitamin C consumption
in the US increased 300%!
(According to a biography - Pauling
in His Own Words - Pauling wrote his 1970 lay book because of
the false information about vitamin C, and other vitamins, being
disseminated by so-called Medical "authorities" through the
Media at that time.)
As the above chart and data
indicate, total CVD mortality peaked between 1950 and 1970, with
coronary disease peaking close to 1970. However, during the
decade of the 1970s, deaths from Coronary Heart Disease began a
steep decline. We attribute this staggering 30%-40% decline to
Pauling's book. The United States was the only developed country
to experience such a decline. This is not a statistical fluke.
We believe these facts are connected
and not merely coincidental. The decline in heart disease,
matched with the increase awareness and intake of Vitamin C,
strongly supports the Pauling/Rath Unified Theory."
Because of the book on the common cold,
Vitamin C consumption increased 300%.
Was it a coincidence that heart disease
decreased dramatically after the book came out? As the above author
argues, it was not a coincidence.
With this statistic in mind, Reader's Digest wrote a book on heart
disease called: Heart Healthy for Life. It was a book on preventing
heart disease, so of course they devoted one or two chapters to the
Linus Pauling prevention program - right? Not!
They devoted one page to natural or
alternative medicine prevention plans. This page doesn't mention
Linus Pauling or his prevention protocol.
This is the opening line of the one page on alternative medicine
(1/3 of page 96 and 2/3 of page 97):
"No sooner do researchers spot a
substance in food that seems to fight disease than some clever
entrepreneur begins to put it into pills or potions."
Right off the bat, in the first
sentence, all alternative medicine people are stereotyped as "clever
entrepreneurs" who make witch's potions.
Gee, I always thought it was Big Pharma
that made the big bucks and worshipped money. The alternative
medicine people are put in the same category as the witch in the
Wizard of Oz.
But it gets worse. After quoting a poorly designed study on Vitamin
E, the book concludes there is inadequate evidence to judge the
effectiveness of alternative prevention plans.
The book totally ignores that heart disease took a nosedive after
people increased their consumption of Vitamin C. While Vitamin E is
in the Linus Pauling prevention protocol, it is not one of the three
main nutrients in the program.
The Reader's Digest book did not mention
Vitamin C, L-Proline or L-Lysine, which are the three main
supplements in the Linus Pauling/Dr. Rath prevention program. Nor
did the study they quoted use any of these supplements. What a
Furthermore, in the study the dosage of Vitamin E that was given the
participants was ludicrously small. It is also almost certain that
the Vitamin E used was dl-alpha tocopherol (synthetic), rather than
d-alpha tocopherol (natural). The study was designed by people who
had no idea what they were doing, or it was designed by people who
wanted to discredit Linus Pauling, but yet it is the main study the
Reader's Digest article depended on when it talked about alternative
But it gets worse.
This same book has an entire chapter on
the wonders of prescription drugs for the heart (Chapter 10). It has
another chapter on how wonderful heart surgery is, no doubt it is
something everyone should have (Chapter 11). It has yet another
chapter to convince you to run to your doctor as fast as possible to
see if you have heart problems (Chapter 3).
Of course they also talk about all the
highly profitable "theories" of heart disease, such as cholesterol.
Three chapters on orthodox medicine (actually it is far more than
that, but these are entire chapters dedicated to orthodox medicine),
one page on alternative medicine, and that page depended on an
absurd study that had only a small part of the Linus Pauling
When you see all the advertising by the
pharmaceutical companies in the Reader's Digest magazines, are you
Am I accusing someone in Reader's Digest of intentionally
suppressing natural prevention measures in order to get more
advertising money for Reader's Digest?
Because of the complex rules
a media company must follow when dealing with alternative medicine
(in order to maintain their pharmaceutical industry advertising
dollars), and because Reader's Digest has a long history of
following those rules perfectly, it is virtually impossible that
Reader's Digest coincidentally follows those rules decade after
Thus, considering the opening remark
about alternative medicine, and the massive amount of support for
orthodox medicine over the years, then yes, I am saying that someone
in Reader's Digest knew the rules and made sure they were followed.
Unfortunately, Reader's Digest does
represent American values, or should I say: corporate values.
"There is no such thing, at this
date of the world's history, in America, as an independent
press. You know it and I know it. There is not one of you who
dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know
beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly
for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper I am connected
Others of you are paid similar
salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so
foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets
looking for another job. If I allowed my honest opinions to
appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my
occupation would be gone.
The business of the journalists is
to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to
fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race
for his daily bread. You know it and I know it, and what folly
is this toasting an independent press? We are the tools and
vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks,
they pull the strings and we dance.
Our talents, our possibilities and
our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual
John Swinton (1829-1901)
pre-eminent New York journalist & head of the editorial staff at
the New York Times. Quoted one night between 1880-1883.
Quoted by Upton Sinclair in his 1919 book: The Brass Check: A
Study of American Journalism, page 400
Even though Upton Sinclair was famous by
1919, because he was criticizing
corruption in the media, he had to
self-publish this book.
Back to Contents
Chapter 9 - How The Media and Establishment Control The Public
You might be curious what techniques our public schools,
media, our politicians, etc. etc. use to control the public.
Their methods are more sophisticated
than you probably think. Some of the techniques used by orthodox
medicine have already been discussed. Controlling the information
that the general public has access to is absolutely essential to the
The reason is that in school or in life
you are probably at some time going to run into a "renegade" who
just refuses to believe what he or she is told and has a different
point of view. It is the control of information that conditions you
to ignore what they say.
If you don't believe me, just read on.
Hearing Both Sides of an Issue
To illustrate the control of
information (aka brainwashing), let me use
Darwin's "Theory of
Evolution" as an example of teaching what I want to get across,
since that is a controversial area in which everyone seems to have
More importantly, it is the only theory
that is allowed to be taught in our schools.
There are two broad categories of theories about evolution:
are those who think that evolution occurred by total accident
second, are those who think that
God had a hand in evolution or God
simply created each species independently
Let us call the first
group the "evolutionists" and the second two groups the
There are actually several different
camps (i.e. different theories) within each group, and there are
hybrid groups (i.e. hybrid theories), but let us assume there are
only two simple groups.
To visualize the two different camps, suppose there is a large field
and there is a fence that bisects the field and you are standing at
one end of the fence looking down the fence. On the right side of
this fence are the evolutionists (the people who make up the
"establishment") and on the left side of this fence are the
creationists (the people who disagree with the "establishment" point
You have the choice of siding with the establishment or the
renegades. In some cases this choice could affect your job. For
example, if you taught biology in a public high school, and you
believed in creationism, and taught creationism in your classroom,
you might lose your job.
If you are only looking for the benefits, and a promotion, then
there is no question as to what theory you will teach. The evolution
side of the fence has virtually all the benefits. But let us suppose
you are one of those
rare people who are more interested in truth
What are you going to do?
Suppose you want to know the truth (as best as you are capable of
honestly determining as an "open-minded" person) - is evolutionism
or creationism correct based on the evidence currently available?
Suppose that you decide to start your decision making journey by
talking first with the evolutionists; because everything you have
heard in school is that evolution has been proven to be true. So you
head to the right side of the fence and start talking to an
Suppose this person tells you all the reasons why evolution occurred
by accident. He might go into microevolution (what changes can occur
within a species that shares the same genome), macroevolution (the
creation of new genomes), why transitional species cannot be found
in many cases, punctuated equilibrium, all the bones paleontologists
have found, and so on.
After this conversation, you start to walk away, but the person
stops you. Then this same evolutionist starts telling you all of the
things that are wrong with the creationists. He tells you one theory
after another of the creationists and why each theory cannot be true
and what a bunch of goons they are.
After this conversation, you now feel that you understand both the
evolutionist's and the creationist's theories of evolution.
You decide it is not necessary to go to
the left side of the fence and talk to a creationist because you
already think you understand their views and why their views are
A Common Mistake
If you made such a decision, you would be making a common mistake:
you have heard both sides of the issue, but from only one person on
one side of the fence.
You have really only heard how the
people on one side of the fence feel about the issues. But you
haven't heard the arguments of the creationists, from a creationist,
nor have you heard why the creationists think that the evolutionists
There are actually four categories of the two sides (these are the
four things you need to hear to make an informed decision):
pro-evolution (from the
anti-creation (from the
pro-creation (from the
anti-evolution (from the
In other words, from the right side of
the fence you have heard the pro-evolution arguments and also from
the right side of the fence you have heard all of the
But note that you have not heard the
pro-creationist arguments, from a creationist, nor have you heard
the anti-evolution arguments, from a creationist. You have only
heard two of the four categories because you have only heard from
one person who is on one side of the fence.
Do you really know both sides of the issue? No you don't! You only
know one side of the issue and two of the four categories.
Until you go to the left side of the
fence and hear about the pro-creationist views, from a creationist,
and you hear the anti-evolution views, from a creationist, you don't
have a basis for making an objective decision.
The Way We Have Been Taught
At this point we need to stop and think for a moment.
We have been conditioned all of our
lives not to listen to the "renegades." In physics, you hear how
wonderful Einstein was, but you are told never to talk to anyone who
Einstein (someone like Roland De Witte, for example). In
science class you were taught that evolution has been proven to be
true, and you have been taught that the creationists are all a bunch
of religious nuts.
This same kind of bias has been drilled into you for every
conceivable type of issue. You have graduated from school thinking
you have all the answers and that there are no open issues that need
to be debated. In other words, you think the establishment is
All your life you have been taught not to listen to the people on
both sides of the fence. All your life you have been taught by
people inside the "establishment" and you have been taught that what
the "establishment" teaches is true, and you have been taught what
is wrong with the renegades and you have been taught not to listen
to them. All your life you have been taught two of the four things
you need to make an informed decision. You have been brainwashed.
And now I come along and tell you to listen to the renegades.
Why? Because, quite frankly, sometimes
the "establishment" is wrong. Actually, it is frequently wrong.
There, I said it, sometimes the renegades are right! You will never,
never know when the renegades are right unless you talk to one of
them with an open-mind!
Did it ever occur to you that what the "establishment" tells you
about the creationists is not what the creationists really believe,
or perhaps what you heard about the creationists is what only a very
small percentage of them believe?
You cannot trust an evolutionist to
correctly represent the views of the creationists. They are biased.
They will pick the most fantastic views of a small percentage of the
creationists, then twist and contort their views. They will leave
out the beliefs of the other 90% of the creationists.
When they are done, what they say may
not even remotely represent what a real creationist believes.
But it goes much, much deeper
For example, the research done by
paleontologists involves the dating of bones. In dating these bones
there are a wide range of assumptions that must be made. Rather than
give the public a huge range of dates for a bone (due to unknown
issues such as moisture, radiation, etc.), they pick one specific
date for the age of the bone, and that date is very generous to the
In other words, they assume evolution is
true when they pick a single date for the age of a bone, when in
fact they should pick a very, very wide range of dates due to
For example, many bones are found on the edge of rivers long dried
up. Even if those bones were next to the river (when it was still
flowing) for just a few hundred years, the moisture from the river
could have had a huge affect on the estimated date of when that
Thus, by using generous assumptions, and not making it known that in
fact there are assumptions made, they make it look like evolution,
"has been proven to be true."
Evolution has not been proven to be
true. Much of the evidence comes from generous assumptions with the
I can assure the reader that in some cases (my background is in
mathematics and physics), the assumptions they make with the data
amounts to 99% of the "evidence" used to reach their final
This is true in virtually every field of
Truth Versus Benefits
But aside from all of these issues, did it ever occur to you that
the people in the establishment have a conflict of interest? Let us
go back to the point where you were standing at the end of the fence
and had not yet moved. You had a choice to make.
Before you ever decided to look into the
issues you could have made your decision based on which side offered
you the most benefits.
Did it ever occur to you that
what you hear in the news media, for example, is being told
to you by people who chose the "establishment" side for the
sole reason the establishment had more benefits than the
Did it ever occur to you that
you have not been taught by "truth-seekers," but rather you
have been taught by "benefit-seekers?"
The deciding issue for many people is
not which side is right or wrong, but which side offers the most
It is not a debate between truth and
error, it is a debate between benefits. And many, many of the people
you have listened to throughout your life have been people who have
chosen benefits over truth!
We have been conditioned to believe that an "open-minded" person is
someone who absorbs the propaganda of why the establishment is
always right, and defends the storyline propaganda of why the
renegades are always wrong.
So in reality "you" (the hypothetical person who is trying to find
the truth about evolution) probably have absolutely no desire to
talk to anyone on the left side of the fence. You have heard
everything you think you need to hear. Thus, you are a member of the
establishment and a certified "defender of the faith" of the
End of story - time to go home.
Your Trip To The Left Side of the Fence
Well, just for the heck of it, out of morbid curiosity and to test
your debate skills, you decide to walk over to the left side of the
fence and talk to a creationist.
You carefully walk up to (gulp, drum
roll): Hermann the Horrible Hermit Heretic. Be careful, you say to
yourself, close your ears and don't listen, this person is an idiot.
Oh well, its cold outside and your hands are in your pocket, so you
You shake hands with Hermann and exchange pleasantries. Right away
you are amazed at something: Hermann can talk! You had always been
taught that creationists had the IQ of a rodent and wore beanie caps
Hermann starts by talking about the first living organism, and about
its DNA component and its cell membrane component.
He states that even though it is absurd
that a 300,000 nucleotide chain (300 genes with an average length of
1,000 nucleotides) can randomly form, even if it did, the
statistical probability that the first DNA had a permutation of
nucleotides, such that 300 viable proteins could be created by this
DNA genome, has a probability that is far less than:
10-30,000 (this is a probability of
1 divided by a 1 with 30,000 zeros behind it).
(Note: the 10-30,000
figure is based on the assumption that 1 in 100 random permutations
of 1,000 nucleotides will form a protein vital to a living organism.
This is a very generous figure for the evolutionists, because the
real figure is probably far, far less than 1 in a billion.)
He then stated that even if it could create 300 proteins, there is
an absurdly small probability that these 300 proteins would form a
set of proteins that could support the life of a new organism. He
did not give a probability for this because there isn't enough known
about sets of proteins.
You quickly do some math in your head. You remember from science
class that there are 1080 atoms in our universe. Then, you imagine
there are 1029,920 universes just like ours in a cluster (that is a
one followed by 29,920 zeros). All of these universes combined would
have 1030,000 atoms.
Suppose some government wants to do a lottery and in order to win
the lottery you have to pick the single, correct atom from among all
of the atoms in the 1029,920 universes. The probability of winning
this lottery is 10-30,000.
You ask yourself:
"who is so bad at math they would
buy a ticket in that lottery?"
Then you remember what your math teacher
"the lottery is a tax on people who
are bad at math."
Then you realize there are a lot of
people who would spend their life savings buying lottery tickets in
that lottery. Finally, you come out of your daydreaming and realize
that Hermann was talking while you were doing the math in your head.
Then you hear about the ridiculous probability of the first cell
membrane forming by accident. For two hours Hermann gives you an
earful about how incredibly complex a eukaryotic cell is. It is so
complex that even the exobiologists admit that one could not form by
accident from a prebiotic pool.
Thus, they claim that the first cell was
a prokaryotic cell, and that there are conditions where a
prokaryotic cell can survive without an organic host (since this is
the first cell, there are no organic hosts to feed on). But even so,
Hermann tells you that prokaryotic cells still could not have formed
by accident because they are almost as complex as eukaryotic cells.
Then you hear that the first DNA and first cell membrane could not
have formed in the same prebiotic pool, and thus you are told it was
virtually impossible that they could ever get together.
Hermann then starts talking about new genomes and macroevolution.
You then learn about the improbability of irreducibly complex
protein systems forming large numbers of complex inter-related
proteins in the same random mutation event in macroevolution.
You learn about the mathematical absurdities caused by the issue of
viable permutations of nucleotides from random mutations needed to
create any new gene in any new genome. You hear that this is another
case of absurd probabilities caused by permutations.
You then hear about the "morphing of the embryo."
A new creature starts out as one type of
cell, but when the "baby" is born it has many different kinds of
cells. This means that some cells, when they divide, must divide
into two different kinds of cells. The timing of these strange
divisions has to be with pinpoint accuracy. You learn that the
instructions for this pinpoint accuracy must be built into the DNA,
thus making random mutations even less likely to be advantageous
(i.e. requiring more precise chains of nucleotides).
When Hermann started taking about the
morphing "timing" issues and base-2 trees, you started thinking that
Hermann might even be smart.
Then Hermann starts to talk about the evolutionists (this is the
anti-evolution part, heard from a creationist viewpoint).
He tells you that the first argument the evolutionists use is that
"we exist," thus our existence is proof of evolution. Hermann then
likens this logic to the theory that all of Shakespeare's plays were
written by six monkeys locked in the basement of a building.
He states: is it logical that because
Shakespeare's plays "exist," that the monkey theory is true?
You then hear how "punctuated equilibrium" is really a super
irreducibly complex protein system, and how absurd it is to claim
that it was not necessary for irreducibly complex protein systems to
have mutated all at once, but at the same time to believe in
punctuated equilibrium. You hear why the phylogenetic tree is really
a cover-up for the gaps in transitional species. You also learn
about the massive assumptions evolutionists make with regards to
carbon dating bones.
You also hear the totally unproven
assumptions and very shallow logic evolutionists make with respect
to mitochondrial DNA and nuclear DNA. And so on.
Ten hours pass and you realize the sun went down and it is now dark
- and Hermann is still talking. You also realize it has been four
hours since you had a clue what he was talking about. You also
realize that this is not what you expected. You expected some wild
and crazy theories. But in fact you realize that creationists are
not stupid and they really do have some very strong arguments.
Then you also realize that what you had
been taught by the evolutionists, about what the creationists
believe, has absolutely no relationship to what the creationists
actually do believe.
You finally go home, very confused.
Note: if you are
interested in learning more about creation science, see one of these
This simple story demonstrates the very sad state of affairs in
America and throughout the world.
Neither schools, nor corporations, nor
governments want anyone to hear both sides of any issue from [the
people on] both sides of the fence. They would rather have a
brainwashed student than a thinking student. Schools act as if they
have all of the answers and that it is not necessary to teach
students to think for themselves. Students are graded on how well
they regurgitate "facts," not on how well they think.
Students learn very early on that all of
the benefits are on one side of the fence and that they should spend
their life gathering up the benefits.
"Education... has produced a vast
population able to read but unable to distinguish what is worth
People are taught from birth to assume
and expect that those in the "establishment" (such as the schools,
the news broadcasters and newspapers):
Have no vested interests or
conflicts of interest
Have perfect intelligence
Have all the facts for both
sides of the fence
Are totally neutral and unbiased
Have perfect integrity
Have your best interests in mind
Are truly open-minded
Love truth more than benefits
And above all, you are never, never
allowed to think that money or power (i.e. benefits) could possibly
influence what the establishment teaches you.
Dream on, this is the real world we are talking about.
It is quite probable, that from the time a person starts first
grade, to the time they get a PhD or M.D., they never once hear both
sides of any issue from the people on both sides of a fence. And
even if they do, they have been so brainwashed by one side, or they
are so interested in the benefits of one side, they simply pay no
attention to the "other side."
As incredible as this sounds, it is difficult to get people to grasp
the concept of hearing both sides of an issue from both sides of the
fence. All your life you have been taught that it is not necessary.
Society always has all of the answers,
and anyone who does not agree with society is a crackpot, quack,
moron, rebel, incorrigible, mentally unstable, or whatever.
Applying The Concepts of the Fence to
Now lets talk about the fence that separates orthodox medicine from
alternative medicine (it is more like a steel-reinforced brick wall
with machine gun towers on it, and the machine gun towers are all
owned by the orthodox side).
When your doctor went through medical school, he or she was taught
all the good things about chemotherapy, radiation treatments and all
the other orthodox medical treatments for cancer.
If your doctor was told anything about
alternative treatments for cancer, it was the very biased bad
things. Sound familiar? Has your doctor ever spent one hour
listening to an expert on alternative treatments for cancer? It is
very doubtful, though he or she has probably heard a few experiences
from their patients.
Similarly, you are second level brainwashed, meaning you have been
taught by your brainwashed doctor (who doesn't know anything
truthful about alternative treatments for cancer), all of the good
things about chemotherapy.
You no doubt have heard many times how
wonderful medical schools are and how they are based on a solid
scientific foundation. You have been taught that the AMA (American
Medical Association) is carefully watching out for your health. Not
only are all of these things false, but there are about one hundred
books that have been written to expose the falsity of these
With all of the brainwashing from the media, your schools and your
doctors, after all of this, suppose you pick up a copy of the book
"World Without Cancer - The Story of Vitamin B17" by G. Edward
Griffin. You decide to read this book with an open mind.
There is no possible way you can read
this book with an open mind.
If you read it at all you will read it
to find the errors in it, and what is wrong with G. Edward Griffin.
Do you understand? Every day of your life, for all the years of your
life, you have been brainwashed and have heard only two of the four
elements of the debate. There is no possible way you can undo that
brainwashing in 2 hours.
You can't read that book with an open
mind. It is impossible for you to ignore many years of solid, daily
brainwashing. Everything you have seen on television, everything you
have read in books, everything you have been taught in school, every
magazine article you have read in your life, have all told you the
same story line - orthodox medicine is far superior to alternative
So what can you do if you want to know the truth? You can't, but you
can start. You have to have a clear understanding, and a clear
admission to yourself, that you have only heard two of the four
truth categories, and that now it is time to study the other two
categories. You must want to hear the other two categories.
Then, and only then, can you make the
attempt to read it with an open mind.
Back to Contents
Chapter 10 - Other Techniques the Media and Government Use
Other Control Tactics
What I described in the prior chapter is the tip of the iceberg of
techniques that are used by the media to brainwash people.
Here is a short list of other
Diversion/Distraction From What is Really
This tactic is where the media
diverts your attention from the real issues and consumes
your attention with irrelevant and/or far less important
For example, America always
seems to be
This never-ending battle
with our "enemies" is partly a diversion to distract
people's attention from corporate and government
"America will never be
destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose
our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed
By diverting people's
attention towards external enemies, American politicians
are able to distract our attention from our internal
corruption, which are like a virus or "cancer" and cause
far more damage than our external enemies.
The public has no idea how
corrupt many high ranking officials are because they are
consumed with external "enemies."
"Our government has kept
us in a perpetual state of fear - kept us in a
continuous stampede of patriotic fervor - with the
cry of grave national emergency...
Always there has
been some terrible evil to gobble us up if we did
not blindly rally behind it by furnishing the
exorbitant sums demanded. Yet, in retrospect, these
disasters seem never to have happened, seem never to
have been quite real."
Douglas MacArthur, 1957
As an example, because of
corruption in Congress, Congress has given
Codex Alimentarius Commission (an agency of
Nations) the authority to determine what nutrients can
and cannot be sold in America (this is a major loss of
This authority, for a
variety of reasons, has not yet been exercised.
"What is the Codex
This Commission consists of
pharmaceutical executives and international
delegates and was established in 1962 by the World
Health Organization and the United Nations Food and
Agriculture Organization to develop international
food standards to 'protect' consumer health and to
facilitate 'fair' trading practices in foods...
Vitamins, minerals, and
natural remedies help prevent illness and thus
threaten the pharmaceutical market.
citizens believe that the pharmaceutical industry is
using Codex to discredit the effectiveness of
natural therapies and prop up its trillion-dollar
market for beta blockers, calcium antagonists,
cholesterol-lowering products and so on."
Avoiding The Debate By Using Deception:
In this tactic, the media
makes it sound like they are covering all of the issues of a
debate, when in fact they are only talking about a small
segment of the issues in the debate.
For example, in December, 2002,
Newsweek magazine published a major article on "alternative
medicine." They even talked about cancer. But you can rest
assured they didn't mention any of the top 100 alternative
treatments for cancer. They were talking mainly about
alternative medicine being used to treat the symptoms of
By doing this the reader thought that when they finished
reading the article, they knew everything there was to know
about alternative treatments for cancer, when in fact they
knew absolutely nothing about alternative treatments for
cancer. In other words, the readers didn't even know there
is a debate or war between orthodox and alternative
They think the two sides are
closely working together.
This takes many forms. It
can take the form of bogus research, designed to discredit
valid research. It can take the form of misinformation about
treatment plans, bogus "patients," and so on. Anything that
includes a lie or false information fits into this category.
And that is a lot of things.
This is an interesting
form of propaganda. I have previously mentioned the four
viewpoints that a person needs to look at in order to make
an informed decision. In this method only one of the four
viewpoints are mentioned, the orthodox view of itself.
other three subjects are totally blacklisted, as if one side
didn't even exist.
This, in fact, is a major way of keeping the truth about
alternative medicine from the public, the subject is simply
ignored. Since most people get the vast, vast majority of
their information from the media, the people don't even know
one side of the debate even exists. I will give examples of
this in a future chapter.
The Last Word:
Some media shows like to
pretend they present both sides of issues. Frequently, when
they present both sides of an issue they will actually have
someone from both sides of the fence speak. But it is not
what you think.
The person the media station
doesn't like is always interviewed first. The selections
chosen from the interview with the person they don't like
may be very abbreviated and may be designed to make the
person look rather dull, meaning not very smart. But it gets
They then let the person they like give the "last word."
This person always explains why the first person was wrong,
then explains why their own interpretation is correct. The
second person is always portrayed as very sharp and very
intelligent. A good announcer can enhance the differences
between the two people and make the second person look even
Putting the two interviews together, it is partly an attempt
to mute the first person, then let the second person
criticize the first person and then present the "far more
intelligent" case by the second person. It is critical that
the favored person go last. That way when the second person
is finished, so is the debate. The first person never gets a
chance to refute what the second person said.
The listener is left with a bad taste in their mouth for the
first person and ends up thinking they understand all of the
The listener, of course, ends up
agreeing with the second person. It is a technique that
appears on the surface to be unbiased, but yet it is among
the most pernicious techniques of all.
This is a technique of
belittling the major players of the enemy.
this technique in almost every article they write. They say
something slanderous about one of the proponents of
alternative medicine. They even have an entire article
attempting to belittle Linus Pauling!
Glorifying the Team Players:
It is hard to pick up an
issue of Reader's Digest (in fact it is probably impossible)
without finding at least one article that glorifies orthodox
Frequently, they have an article
glorifying a doctor. Other times they have an article about
how a patient was saved by one or more wondrous orthodox
doctors. Other times they have an article about a disease
and how orthodox medicine is "closing in" on this disease.
They are constantly glorifying
We Must Save The Public:
FTC, ad nauseum.
As I write this, the FTC is
trying to get more control over the internet. It totally
irks them to know that there is a medium that they cannot
control. Their job is to shut down, by force if necessary,
all truth about cancer. They do a great job. They, of
course, focus on the abuses that are done on the internet,
as an excuse to gain more control over the internet.
They want this control in order to suppress the vast amount
of truth that can be found on the internet and the potential
for distributing truth on the internet.
In other words, they
focus on people who are less than 1% as corrupt as they are,
and use the abuses of these people,
This is by far the most common
tactic used by power hungry governments. Almost all power
the government gains (e.g. a new government agency or new
powers) is by finding some "event" they can leverage to
argue for more power so they can presumably protect the
For example, the
Patriot Act, which is supposedly a reaction
to terrorism, is in fact nothing but trashing the
constitutional protections we have. Virtually the entire
Bill of Rights has been destroyed by using this technique.
The media are masters at blowing up the significance of a
single event in order to promote an ever growing and ever
more powerful government.
Hitler used this technique all
Step By Step:
This is not so much a
misinformation technique as it is a way to get what you want
in spite of overwhelming public concern.
As an example, suppose a company
wants its product approved by the FDA. But suppose that the
overwhelming public scientific evidence is that the product
is toxic and causes brain damage, death and a host of other
problems. It is not enough to simply have the pharmaceutical
company produce false "scientific" studies.
Even overt political corruption
cannot get you what you want. What do you do?
No problem, you introduce the product in stages, step by
step, such that no single step causes too much of an outcry,
but taken together, the steps get you the profits that you
want. Of course, a good example is Aspartame.
Here is a very, very shortened
summary of how J.D. Searle got
even though it was known to cause over 90 different
"[Aspartame] is essentially
a chemical weapon designed to impact populations en
masse. It is an rDNA derivative made from two amino
acids, L-phenylalanine, L-aspartic acid and methanol.
Originally discovered during a search for an ulcer drug
in 1966, it was "approved" by the FDA in 1974 as a "food
Approval was followed by a
retraction based on demonstrated public concern over the
fact that the substance produced brain tumors in rats.
According to the 1974 FDA task force set up to examine
aspartame and G.D. Searle,
The task force report
concluded with the recommendation that G.D. Searle
should face a Grand Jury "to identify more particularly
the nature of the violations, and to identify all those
In 1976, an FDA "task force" brought into question all of
G.D. Searle’s aspartame testing procedures conducted between
1967 and 1975.
The final FDA report noted
faulty and fraudulent product testing, knowingly
misrepresented product testing, knowingly misrepresented
findings, and instances of irrelevant animal research. In
other word, illegal criminal activity. Understandably
scared, Searle officials sought to suppress the FDA findings
and obstruct justice.
They turned to Nixon and Ford
administration operative Donald Rumsfeld and elected him
"chairman of the Searle organization."
In 1977, the Wall Street Journal
detailed the fact that Rumsfeld made efforts to "mend
fences" by asking "what Searle could do" in the face of the
changes. Also in 1977, Dr. Adrian Gross, a pathologist
working for the FDA, uncovered evidence that G.D. Searle
might have committed criminal fraud in withholding adverse
data on aspartame...
In 1981, under pressure from the soft drink lobby, FDA
Commissioner Hayes approved the initial use of aspartame in
dry foods and as a tabletop sweetener, discounting public
complaints as anecdotal and ignoring three FDA scientists,
who voiced the fact that there were serious questions
concerning brain tumor tests after having done an in-house
Hayes was widely profiled as a
man who believed that approval for new drugs and additives
was "too slow" because "the FDA demanded too much
information." Hayes also ignored the fact that the biased
scientific studies paid for by Searle were faulty. After
leaving the FDA, Hayes took the post of senior medical
consultant for the public relations firm retained by
Searle... A subsequent inquiry "found no impropriety."
In July 1983 it was approved for use in soft drinks in the
United States, followed three months later by approval in
Britain by the Ministry of Agriculture. All this was done
despite the fact that the Department of Defense knew that
aspartame was neurotoxic and harmful to human health.
These facts were deliberately
suppressed by the government.
It is also interesting that in
1981 FDA scientist Dr. Robert Condon, in an internal
government document, said,
In other words, with enough
effort and money, and using the step by step protocol (from
dry foods to soft drinks), virtually anything can eventually
get approved by the FDA.
The step by step protocol is used by virtually all
governments to get what they want. When Hitler conquered a
country he did not just march in and kill all of the Jews,
that would have raised a public outcry. He did it small step
by small step, such as by making the Jews wear arm bands,
then causing them to lose their companies, then segregating
them from the general public, then putting them in
concentration camps, etc.
As another example, the anti-gun people do not want private
citizens to own guns.
As the bumper sticker says:
Thus, step-by-step, laws are
passed in cities, states and nationally to increase the
number of people who have to register guns, and the number
of types of guns that are outlawed. The newest step is H.R.
This step-by-step process will
not end until all non-criminals have their guns confiscated.
Hidden Agendas and Deceptive Titles:
This is another common
technique used by corrupt governments to get what they want.
And, as always, the media is at
the front of the massive deception. In this case the
"titles" and "issues" presented to the public are vastly
different from the intended purpose of the organization or
For example, there is an organization called:
"Office of Cancer
Complementary and Alternative Medicine (OCCAM)," a noble
which is part of the
"National Cancer Institute (NCI)," another noble
which is part of the
"National Institutes of Health (NIH)," another noble
which is part of the "U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services," certainly an
organization of complete integrity.
Wow, with all of these high sounding names, OCCAM must have
a fabulous web site supporting and helping alternative
It is all a lie. OCCAM exists to
suppress the truth about alternative medicine. It exists to
lure people who contact the NCI away from the truth about
alternative medicine. Its name implies it is pro-alternative
medicine, but its actions are totally anti-alternative
Such deception in titles are common in government,
charities, ad nauseum.
The "American Medical Association"
has no interest in your health, it is effectively a labor
union. The "American Cancer Society" has no interest in
seeing people cured of cancer, it is interested in luring
research money away from alternative medicine and in raising
money for orthodox "research."
And the list goes on and on.
Back to Contents
Chapter 11 - The Role of
The Claim There is "No Scientific
Evidence" for Alternative Treatments
The budget for people doing serious research on alternative
treatment plans is zero.
One reason for this is that the FDA will
not give formal permission for anyone to do research on alternative
treatments on live patients. In other words, the government cronies
of the pharmaceutical industry do everything in their power to stop
alternative treatment research. That way they can claim there is "no
scientific evidence" for alternative treatments.
Because the FDA, NIH (National Institute of Health, a government
agency) and NCI (a division of the NIH) refuse to do legitimate and
honest research into alternative treatments, they are artificially
manufacturing a situation where there is "no scientific evidence"
for alternative treatments (according to their definition of
"science"), and because there is "no scientific evidence" for
alternative treatments, these agencies, along with the AMA, have
legal power to suppress and harass alternative treatment
practitioners, thus making sure there is "no scientific evidence."
It is a "self-fulfilling prophesy."
In other words, it is like Jim predicting John is going to die
within 5 hours, and then Jim pulls out a gun and shoots John, thus
fulfilling his own prophesy. The pharmaceutical industry's cronies
claim there is "no scientific evidence" for natural treatments, then
they do everything in their power to insure there is "no scientific
But that is not all. In a jury trial, one or two key witnesses is
frequently enough "evidence" for a jury.
But with the FDA, NIH and NCI, the tens
of thousands of witnesses who have been cured of cancer by
alternative treatments are not allowed to "testify." Their testimony
is not admitted as evidence. Nor are the hundreds of scientific
studies on natural treatments for cancer.
The ultimate goal of the FDA, which they have achieved, is to only
allow scientific evidence that comes from the pharmaceutical
industry. Since the pharmaceutical industry does not research
alternative treatments for cancer (because these treatments are not
profitable enough), by limiting "research" to the pharmaceutical
industry they have stopped any possibility that there will ever be
any "scientific" evidence for alternative treatments for cancer.
On top of this, the pharmaceutical industry are the biggest
scientific liars on earth.
Many, many of their studies have been
shown to be fraudulent. On top of that the FDA has made the approval
process so expensive, there is no way that any natural product
manufacturer can afford to get a natural product approved.
There is absolutely nothing more important for our corrupt
government agencies to accomplish (from the perspective of the
pharmaceutical industry) than to insure there is "no scientific
evidence" for alternative treatments. With this great lie in hand,
everyone on the side of orthodox medicine has the tools they need to
crush alternative medicine and perpetuate the great lie that there
is no scientific evidence.
Ignoring the evidence and suppressing
the truth about the scientific evidence of alternative treatments
are to the conspiracy, what an engine is to a truck.
To be technical, the official job of the FDA and other "health"
agencies of the U.S. Government (i.e. this is why they were created
in the first place) is to protect the profits of the big
pharmaceutical and chemical companies, which have had, and still
have, enormous influence in the U.S. government. That is the typical
job of all government agencies when they are created, each has a
sector of the corporate world to protect, and each is created
because of the influence of big corporations.
I will be more specific. A corporation has no police powers.
was specifically created to give
Big Pharma police powers. Whenever
Big Pharma wants something, they simply go to one of their
departments (the FDA in this case) and have the FDA "take care of
When they are not using their police powers for Big Pharma, their
assigned task is to suppress all truth and all scientific evidence
for alternative treatments for cancer, heart disease prevention,
Of course their real objective is masked
behind the facade of pretending to be concerned about the health of
the American people. No doubt many of the lower level employees of
the FDA really are concerned about the health of the American
people, but lower level employees have no influence with the top
executives, who are the main beneficiaries of the pharmaceutical
The hypocrisy of the FDA, AMA, Big Pharma, etc. is unbelievable.
They claim that they do not want patients to be exposed to
alternative treatments for cancer on grounds of their great
Is there no end to the hypocrisy and
lies of the medical leaders, journalists, politicians and above all,
pharmaceutical executives and key employees?
My Challenge to the FDA
Let us suppose there were two groups of recently diagnosed cancer
Each group has 1,000 patients. Each
group is similar in terms of the age of the patient, the type of
cancer, the stage at diagnosis, etc. No one in either group has had
any cancer treatments, and no one is over 65 years old (because this
is a ten year study). Finally, each person must have at least Stage
III cancer at the time of diagnosis.
I challenge the medical establishment to a contest. I will put
together a team of M.D.s, alternative cancer experts, etc. and we
will treat one of the groups with alternative cancer treatments.
Orthodox medicine will treat the other group with orthodox
treatments that are commonly used by oncologists.
There is an understanding that the
patients in the orthodox group are not allowed to take any natural
substances for the treatment of their cancer (they can take
well-advertised natural substances for the symptoms of chemotherapy,
In ten years, which group will have the most people still surviving?
Our group will be guaranteed to have at least 80% still living, but
probably over 90% will still be living. The other group will
probably have less than 10% still living, and likely less than 5%.
The contest will be decided by 10-year survival rates, and will have
absolutely nothing to do with symptoms (e.g. tumor shrinkage). The
only decision criteria is what percentage of the patients are still
You would think that our diligent government agencies would welcome
such a contest. Don't kid yourself. The NIH would never fund such a
study. The FDA would never allow it on live patients. The AMA would
yank the license of any M.D. that participated on our side.
Various governments would jail any other
person on our team for,
"practicing medicine without a
In short, only Congress could legislate
such a contest.
However, there are more Big Pharma
lobbyists than their are congressmen and congresswomen.
The "excuse" of the FDA for not doing this study is their pretended
concern for cancer patients. They would say that the alternative
cancer treatments are "unproven."
Do you see the picture?
Organized medicine doesn't want anyone
to know the truth about alternative treatments for cancer, because
they are not profitable to them!! For example, there are more than a
dozen nutrients in purple grapes, with their seeds and skin, that
orthodox medicine admits selectively kill cancer cells. But they
don't want any studies with purple grapes (as my article talks about
them) or any other alternative treatment for cancer.
Ponder this carefully, there has never been, and will never be a
legitimate side-by-side study between alternative treatments and
orthodox treatments (where alternative treatment experts control the
alternative patients). The one study that did that (Pauling and
Cameron) was so distressing to orthodox medicine that they did three
bogus studies at the Mayo Clinic (which regularly receives millions
of dollars in cancer "research" money) to suppress the truth.
They do everything in their power to crush the evidence for
alternative treatments for cancer, so they can say:
"there is no scientific evidence for
The logic they present to the public is
"there is no scientific evidence for
alternative treatments, so we will not allow any studies of
alternative treatments, even though purple grapes contain more
than a dozen nutrients that selectively kill cancer cells."
It is absolutely critical to the many
billions of dollars in profits every year of orthodox medicine that
there are no valid studies using alternative treatments for cancer.
The most important thing for our totally
corrupt federal government is to protect the profits of the big
The Big Picture
Now let's suppose that I manufactured a pill that contained two
dozen nutrients, all proven to selectively kill cancer cells, and
that this pill cures cancer (in conjunction with a good cancer
If I put anything on the bottle
(i.e. the label) that stated these pills cured cancer, the
Food and Drug Administration would shut me down
for selling unapproved cancer treatments (chemotherapy is, of
If I didn't put anything on the label about cancer, but put the
information on my web site, the equally corrupt Federal Trade
Commission (FTC) would shut me down for advertising unapproved
cancer treatments. (Note: Actually, the FDA has the authority to
enforce the key FTC laws.)
Thus, information about my product could
not be put in any proximity to the product itself.
Now let's suppose that an M.D. recommended my product to a cancer
patient. The totally corrupt American Medical Association would yank
the license of the doctor for recommending "unproven" treatments.
Now let's suppose that an naturopath recommended my product to a
The totally corrupt
Association could have the person arrested (in a sting operation)
"practicing medicine without a
Now let's suppose a person wrote a book
on how to cure cancer, and it was a very viable treatment.
No one could touch him - right? I will
tell you what happened in one instance. Someone was hired to plant
explosives on his property, then the feds came in and arrested him
(or the feds brought the explosives with them when they searched his
property - I don't know which happened) for having illegal
explosives on his property.
Someone should write a book on the more than 100 instances where the
things I just mentioned really happened. Yes, the feds did shut down
some real quacks. But the feds couldn't care less whether the person
cures cancer or not, they will shut down everybody, even the people
who do cure cancer. And yes, people have been murdered (e.g. an
Royal Rife, a laetrile doctor, to mention but two),
labs have been burnt to the ground, etc.
Our own government has very cleverly blocked almost all forms of
communication about alternative treatments for cancer, and it has
all been done in total secrecy because the press has sold out to the
highest bidder - Big Pharma.
Here is the really scary part. It doesn't matter whether the
President is a Republican or a Democrat. It doesn't matter whether
the House is controlled by the Republicans or the Democrats. It
doesn't matter whether the Senate is controlled by the Republicans
or the Democrats.
The suppression of the truth about
cancer treatments continues in force.
L-Tryptophan and Prozac
While the major job of the FDA is to suppress all scientific
evidence for alternative treatments for cancer and heart disease
prevention, that is not all they do.
It is also their job to suppress the
availability of alternative medicines. They are masters at that too.
Everyone is aware of Prozac and the many other drugs used and
approved to treat
depression and other mental illnesses. In the
July, 2003 Reader's Digest (who else) there was an article on
teenage depression and drugs like Prozac (this was not the only
pro-orthodox article in this issue). The article originally appeared
in Newsweek, yet another magazine loyal to their advertisers.
This article talks about the growing number of teenagers who are
depressed. The solution? Of course it is to run to your doctor and
get prescription drugs and/or therapy if there is even the slightest
hint your child might be depressed. (Obviously, a suicidal child
should see a professional who has the authority to protect them.)
The article, of course, doesn't talk about alternative treatments
for teenage depression.
How about parents spending more
time with their children?
How about parents talking to
their children and actually listening to their children?
How about parents becoming
friends with their children?
How about parents setting a
better example for their children and teaching them by
example not to worship popularity and money (e.g. not to
How about parents putting less
pressure on their children "to succeed" in school and in
The article mentions stress as a cause,
but makes no effort to explain how to reduce stress by using the
Then there are the food substances and additives that cause
emotional disturbances, such as aspartame, Monosodium Glutamate,
refined sugar, food dyes, etc. etc. Of course they didn't mention
any of these things either because orthodox medicine treats
symptoms, not causes. Newsweek and Reader's Digest want your
children to get hooked on prescription drugs.
As it turns out, there are alternative medical treatments for
depression. Foremost among these is L-Tryptophan, a critical amino
acid the body cannot manufacture for itself.
Both L-Tryptophan and Prozac work with
serotonin, a chemical that has to do with how we feel.
"Elevated levels of serotonin in the
body often result in the relief of depression, as well as
substantial reduction in pain sensitivity, anxiety and stress.
Prozac, as well as other new anti-depressant drugs such as Paxil
and Zoloft, attempt to enhance levels of serotonin by working on
whatever amounts of it already exist in the body (these drugs
are known as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors).
None of these drugs, however,
produce serotonin. In contrast, ingested L-Tryptophan acts to
produce serotonin, even in individuals who generate little
serotonin of their own.
The most effective way to elevate levels
of serotonin would be to use a serotonin producer rather than a
Dean Wolfe Manders, Ph.D.
Thus it is clear that L-Tryptophan and
Prozac are in competition with each other.
Prozac is a drug that fools the body and
L-Typtophan is an amino acid that creates more serotonin. Prozac,
and similar drugs, have been shown to have deadly side-effects. But
I won't get into that.
So what is the FDA going to do? It is deadly Prozac versus harmless
and far more effective L-Tryptophan.
This is what they did:
"In the fall of 1989, the FDA
recalled L-Tryptophan, an amino acid nutritional supplement,
stating that it caused a rare and deadly flu-like condition (Eosinophilia-Myalgia
Syndrome - EMS). On March 22, 1990, the FDA banned the public
sale dietary of L-Tryptophan completely. This ban continues
On March 26, 1990, Newsweek featured a lead article praising the
virtues of the anti-depressant drug Prozac. Its multi-color
cover displayed a floating, gigantic green and white capsule of
Prozac with the caption: “Prozac: A Breakthrough Drug for
The fact that the FDA ban of L-Tryptophan and the Newsweek
Prozac cover story occurred within four days of each other went
unnoticed by both the media and the public. Yet, to those who
understand the effective properties of L-Tryptophan and Prozac,
the concurrence seems “unbelievably coincidental.”
The link here is the brain
neurotransmitter serotonin - a biochemical nerve signal
conductor. The action of Prozac and L-Tryptophan are both
involved with serotonin, but in totally different ways."
You need to understand that it takes far
more than 4 days to get an issue of Time out the door.
Thus, Time magazine was working on the
Prozac article weeks before the FDA issued their order. You should
also understand that the FDA did not prove that L-Tryptophan was
dangerous. They banned it because a drug company issued a
contaminated batch of L-Tryptophan.
Normally, when a drug company issues a bad batch of a product, which
is quite common, the FDA fines the company and may have some other
punishment for the company. But the FDA does not ban the product!
But in this case the FDA banned the harmless and useful product.
real crime? Competing with
This "double standard" is standard operating procedure for the
totally corrupt FDA.
Thus we have a situation where Congress has allowed for several
decades for tobacco products to be manufactured and sold, which are
known to kill hundreds of thousands of Americans every year, but at
the same time Congress has allowed the FDA to ban L-Tryptophan.
"The public availability of
L-Tryptophan is too important an issue only to be argued and
shrouded within a scientific debate that remains, ultimately,
mystifying to the vast majority of Americans. There are many
obvious facts worthy of public attention, and public concern.
For example, consider the following:
On February 9, 1993, a United
States government patent (#5185157) was issued to use
L-Tryptophan to treat, and cure EMS, the very same deadly
flu-like condition which prompted the FDA to take
L-Tryptophan off the market in 1989.
Notwithstanding its public ban
and import alert on L-Tryptophan, the FDA today allows
Ajinomoto U.S.A. the right to import from Japan human-use
L-Tryptophan. Distributed from the Ajinomoto plant in
Raleigh, North Carolina, the L-Tryptophan is then sold to,
and through, a network of compounding pharmacies across the
United States. Purchased by individuals only under a
physician's order, L-Tryptophan emerges as a new
prescription drug in the serotonin marketplace; one hundred
500 mg capsules cost about $75 — approximately five times
more than if they were sold as a dietary supplement.
Since the FDA holds the
political mandate and power of a public regulatory agency
established, ostensibly, to protect people from raw
corporate interests in drug production and distribution, the
actions of the FDA in concert with Ajinomoto U.S.A. are
illuminating. By publicly banning L-Tryptophan from its
dietary supplement status and price, while allowing
L-Tryptophan to be sold as a high-priced prescription drug,
the naked duplicity of FDA L-Tryptophan policy is revealed.
During and after the 1989 EMS
outbreak, the FDA did not totally ban the use of
L-Tryptophan in humans — then, as today, the FDA has granted
the pharmaceutical industry the protected right to use
L-Tryptophan in hospital settings. Manufactured by Abbott
Laboratories, the amino acid injectable solutions Aminosyn
and Aminosyn II contain as much as 200 mg of L-Tryptophan.
(Moreover, L-Tryptophan has never been removed from baby
food produced and sold within the United States.)
While the FDA has banned the public
sale and use of safe, non-contaminated, dietary supplement
L-Tryptophan for people, the United States Department of
Agriculture still sanctions the legal sale and use of
non-contaminated L-Tryptophan for animals.
Today, as in the past, feed grade
L-Tryptophan continues to be used as a nutritional and bulk feed
additive by the commercial hog and chicken farming industry.
Additionally, L-Tryptophan is now available for use by
veterinarians in caring for horses and pets. Outside of the
United States, in countries such as Canada, the Netherlands,
Germany, England, and others, L-Tryptophan is widely used.
Nowhere, have any serious or
widespread health problems occurred."
You may have noticed that
L-Tryptophan was on an "import alert"
An import alert is a way for the FDA to
suppress the importation of a natural substance that competes with
Big Pharma. Imagine this: a critical amino acid is put on an import
alert because a pharmaceutical company made a contaminated batch of
it. Meanwhile, cigarettes are still legal and only require a warning
There have been import alerts issued for virtually every useful
For example, here is a short list of
potent alternative cancer treatments that have been found on import
714-X or 714X
anything from Dr. Hans A. Nieper
immuno-augmentative therapy (IAT)
Dimethyl Sulfoxide (DMSO)
Two things you should know about import
As you might guess, the justification
for these alerts is virtually always because there is "no scientific
evidence" these treatments work. Are you surprised? But there is
something else you need to know.
Anti-alternative organizations, such as
quackwatch, use the import alerts as their evidence that a
particular treatment doesn't work. In other words, the corruption of
the FDA, and their lust for a piece of the pharmaceutical money pie,
is used as evidence an alternative treatment plan doesn't work.
How is that for coming full circle?
Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC
or simply: Codex)
What the FDA is to the U.S.
Codex Alimentarius is to
the United Nations.
If you know anything about the U.N. then
it should come as no surprise to you that Codex is just as corrupt
as the FDA, if not more so. I say that because of the way Codex is
organized. Pharmaceutical company employees can and do sit on the
key governing committees of Codex. Corruption in Europe and other
countries is far more open than it is in America.
I quote from Dr. Rath, who has both cancer treatment and
heart disease prevention protocols:
"Dr. Mathias Rath, one of the most
vocal and credible of opponents to the CAC is, according to
many, also among the leading American researchers in
The German-born California resident
was a co-worker of Nobel prize winner Dr. Linus Pauling. Dr.
Pauling, for those requiring testimony from the most heavily
credentialed of scientists, won two Nobel prizes and is the only
scientist to have ever done so in different, unrelated
Dr. Rath, addressing a conference on alternative medicine in
Chemnitz, Germany, outlined the various dangers inherent in the
Codex document. Among them are the commission's recommendations
that vitamins and minerals be placed, along with herbs and
"botanicals", in the category of controlled prescription
The only purpose for this, Rath and
others maintain, would be to provide a seemingly viable reason
to raise the price of food supplements to prescription levels.
This, Rath also claims, stems from
the pharmaceutical company's unrestrained greed for profit and
the elimination of the public's easy access to effectual natural
remedies that would "rob" the drug companies of exorbitant
profits. As an example of this he cites his research into the
simple use of vitamin C, in concert with other substances, for
the virtual elimination of cardiovascular disease from test
Rath claims that after his clinically-controlled therapy
produced astounding results in the reduction of cardiovascular
disease and, subsequently being endorsed by Linus Pauling, the
Roche Corporation, anticipating an increased demand for vitamin
C, artificially elevated the price of its raw materials for
production of that vitamin.
This action on the part of Roche,
"the German Bayer Corporation and the U.S. firm
Archer-Daniels-Midland (ADM)," resulted, Rath claims, in the
formation of a cartel for the purpose of "criminal price
This claim is strongly substantiated
by the U.S. government's subsequent prosecution of ADM for that
The U.S. Congress, who will sell-out to
anyone walking by their office building with money in hand, passed a
law that states that American sovereignty is irrelevant and that
Codex should have control over what can and cannot be sold and how
it is classified.
The FDA vehemently denies Codex has any
authority over it, and the soap opera goes on and on.
It Gets Worse
The medical establishment
loves it when someone on alternative treatments dies.
I remember looking at a web site owned
by an orthodox medicine cancer clinic. It told the story of a person
on hydrazine sulphate (one of the top 50), who died of liver
complications. It is a typical example of only telling one side of
For example, assuming the story is true
(and there are significant reasons to believe it is not true):
They didn't tell you how damaged
the person's liver was before the person started alternative
treatments. No alternative treatment can fix a liver
destroyed by cancer and chemotherapy before the treatment
even begins. (Note: Just because a person has liver cancer
does NOT mean that the liver is damaged beyond repair.)
They didn't tell you the dosage
of hydrazine sulphate the patient used. It is well known
that a person should not take a higher dose of hydrazine
sulphate (H.S.) than advised (hopefully, the patient got
good advice from their vendor). There are some treatment
plans where "more is not better," and H.S. is one of them.
The fact of the matter is that H.S. has
an incredible safety record when taken in recommended dosages (its
safety record is far better than any chemotherapy drug).
But more importantly, why didn't this
same web site talk about the nearly 33,000 people cured of cancer by
Dr. Kelley. Why didn't they post testimonials of local people who
were cured with natural means (e.g. Essiac Tea, the Raw Food diet,
But there is more to it than that. Why did this person die? Was it
because the medical establishment suppressed important information
about alternative treatments, and because of this, this person chose
the wrong treatment plan for his situation? For example, if this
person had advanced terminal cancer before he went on alternative
treatments, hydrazine sulphate would have been a very poor choice
for his situation.
If the medical community supported
alternative treatments for cancer, someone could have told him that
The chances are, the main reason this person died is because good
information about alternative treatments for cancer are suppressed
by orthodox medicine. Did this clinic talk about that? Obviously
not. It is simply part of the ongoing propaganda campaign to
discredit alternative treatments to get money.
The FDA and the rest of the medical establishment has not only
stopped you from knowing the truth about alternative treatments,
they have also stopped you from knowing exact "cure rates"
(alternative definition) for: specific types of cancer, for specific
types of treatment plans, diagnosed at specific stages.
Furthermore, they have virtually stopped
you from being able to be treated by a licensed medical doctor.
Thus, if you want to use alternative treatments, you are probably
going to have to treat and monitor yourself. Furthermore, you are
going to have to pick a treatment plan yourself, without the benefit
of a lot of good statistical information.
Thus, let me summarize what the job of the FDA, AMA, NIH, NCI, ACS,
cancer research organizations, ad nauseum, is:
Suppress any attempt by anyone
to produce "scientific evidence" for alternative treatments
Suppress the availability of
natural products to patients
Suppress the importation into
the United States of natural products that treat cancer
Suppress any useful statistical
information about alternative treatments for cancer
But there is another way to summarize
the job of the FDA, ad nauseum:
The job of the FDA is to suppress
all information about alternative treatments so that people will not
know that alternative treatments for cancer even exist.
But if they do find out alternative
treatments exist, they won't know the truth about how good
alternative treatments are. Or if they do try to use alternative
treatments they will pick the wrong treatment protocol because the
FDA suppresses any possible good statistical information about
alternative treatments for cancer.
They have covered all of the bases quite well and they have a wide
array of sophisticated "tools" to do their job. And it is our tax
dollars that fund their protection of Big Pharma's profits.
A top executive of the FDA can expect to
be a millionaire within three years of quitting
Back to Contents
Chapter 12 -
The FDA Versus Freedom of Speech
Recent FDA Court Losses
In spite of the dictatorial powers given the FDA by Congress to
crush alternative medicine (technically the FDA works for Congress),
in recent years the FDA has lost some critical court cases. It seems
there are still a few tough judges willing to stand up to Big
There are two key problems the FDA has run into.
First, is the issue of scientific evidence. There is a growing
number of long-term studies which yield high quality, published
scientific evidence linking natural substances to health benefits.
Natural health vendors have begun to put this information on their
labels, literature and web sites. The FDA does not like that.
Linking truth to products is not acceptable to the FDA. They want
the product and the truth to be on separate galaxies and they prefer
that the truth be totally suppressed.
Second, is that problematic document that Congress routinely ignores
called the Constitution. It seems our founding fathers were not
paid-off by Big Pharma and they put a clause in the Constitution
regarding "Freedom of Speech." In fact, it is the first amendment,
so they must have worried that government would abuse freedom of
speech once government got big and corrupt. They were right.
Of course for years the FDA has gotten around the freedom of speech
issue by pretending to be concerned about the health of the American
people. But with the new studies, it seems that there is now
significant, high-quality scientific evidence that favors natural
substances and some courts have noticed.
So put yourself in the shoes of the FDA and think for a moment. For
decades you have successfully ignored the Constitution, but new
scientific discoveries are coming out, and are being used in courts.
Suddenly your facade of dignity is getting fairly large cracks in
it. What are you going to do?
Before reading on, stop reading and ponder and think about how you
would overcome this new obstacle (hint: come up with a really
profound sounding slogan that has no meaning). Write down your
Well, what did you come up with?
The FDA came up with the slogan:
"significant scientific agreement."
The concept of "significant scientific
agreement" dates back to the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of
1990 (NLEA), which was partly or completely written by the FDA.
What in the world is "significant scientific agreement?" The first
time the FDA tried to use this new term in court, the court wanted
to know what it meant (actually, only the appellate court wanted to
know). The FDA had no answer and lost the case at the appellate
Since that time the FDA has spent a lot of time and money figuring
out how to define the term "significant scientific agreement" so
that it could be used in court to crush scientific evidence and
crush freedom of speech.
Before getting into the nitty-gritty details, let's look at the big
picture. What is the intent of the concept of significant scientific
agreement? The intent is to give orthodox opinions more credibility
than actual scientific studies.
In other words, the FDA wanted some way to negate actual published
scientific studies. They cannot refute the statistical data, so they
have attempted to use that old standby - orthodox opinions - to
Let us think about orthodox opinions. First we must understand that
Medical Doctors are trained in medical schools that are largely
funded and historically totally controlled (both directly and
indirectly) by the pharmaceutical industry.
Thus, anyone with an M.D. behind their name is guaranteed to have
They know virtually nothing
They know nothing truthful about
alternative treatments for cancer
The are totally brainwashing
into believing chemotherapy and radiation are actually good
for a patient
They hate alternative medicine
because it cuts into their profits
They think all alternative
medicine is quackery
Couple this with massive conflicts of
interest, such as the Mayo Clinic, and other cancer research
organizations, receiving millions of dollars in funding for cancer
"research," and you have the sum total of "orthodox opinion."
In other words, "orthodox opinion" is made up of people: who have
massive conflicts of interest, who hate the way God does His
chemistry (because it is not profitable), who have been brainwashed
into believing God is a quack, who want alternative medicine
crushed, and so on.
In short "orthodox opinion" is exactly what the FDA wants because
its foundation is profits for the medical community. In other words,
"significant scientific agreement," "orthodox opinion," and
"pharmaceutical profits" all mean exactly the same thing.
Thus, by cleverly morphing the phrase "pharmaceutical profits" into
the phrase "significant scientific agreement," the FDA is pitting
pharmaceutical profits against scientific evidence.
The Court Case Dealing With
"Significant Scientific Agreement"
The key court case in dealing
with the concept of "significant scientific agreement" is the case
of Pearson vs. Shalala (Pearson v. Shalala, 164 F.3d 650 (D.C. Cir.
1999), reh'g, en banc, denied, 172 F.3d 72 (D.C. Cir. 1999)).
Actually is was the Life Extension
Foundation (LEF) vs. the FDA, but legally it is known as Pearson vs.
I quote from the LEF website:
"Our challenge began when the
government refused to allow claims we wished to make on dietary
supplements, including such things as "Antioxidant vitamins may
reduce the risk of certain cancers" and "Omega-3 fatty acids may
reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease". These claims are
backed up by scientific evidence, yet the FDA nixed them based
on something called "significant scientific agreement".
There may be scientific evidence,
they argued, but not everyone agrees. This so-called
"significant scientific agreement" rule was purely a creation of
the FDA, yet the agency could not, or would not, define it. What
it boiled down to is the agency had created for itself a stone
wall it could throw up at will.
Drug companies could claim that
their products prevented X based on scientific evidence, but
supplement manufacturers could not. We wanted to knock down this
wall so that people could have access to information about
vitamins and other supplements."
First, let's talk about the phrase:
"There may be scientific evidence,
they argued, but not everyone agrees."
Have you ever heard such a ridiculous
statement? Yes, I know that virtually all pharmaceutical research on
cancer drugs is totally bogus. But yet it seems that "everyone
agrees" with their bogus studies because they lead to profitable
"Everyone agrees" with the ridiculous and bogus studies that compare
one toxic chemotherapy drug to another toxic chemotherapy drug.
"Everyone agrees" with the unproven (in
fact disproven) theory that shrinking a tumor leads to the increase
in life span of cancer patients. "Everyone agrees" that chemotherapy
does more good than harm (which, of course, is a lie).
Who exactly is "everyone." Surprise, it is the orthodox medicine
people who are under the total control of Big Pharma. Who else would
the FDA quote?
But when natural substances are tested, suddenly "not everyone
How can someone disagree with a
well-done, quality, honest scientific study?
How can they ignore
overwhelming, repeatable, scientific statistics?
Do you see a pattern here?
I have done many experiments myself, and
it is well-known that if you don't agree with something, do it
In other words, a good scientific
experiment is verifiable and repeatable. You don't "disagree" with a
quality, honest experiment that is verifiable and repeatable. Such
an experiment is irrefutable.
So why is the FDA talking about "not everyone agrees?"
Perhaps they should have said:
"not everyone thinks it leads to
more profitable techniques."
So, the LEF wanted to tell their
customers about scientific experiments that were not profitable to
We see that the FDA was willing to
accept scientific evidence if it benefited and profited the
pharmaceutical industry, but when the scientific evidence benefited
the public it was not allowed because orthodox medicine (i.e. the
pharmaceutical industry) did not consider the scientific evidence to
lead to more profits.
I continue the previous quote:
"We believe that consumers are
perfectly capable of judging for themselves whether they want to
take a dietary supplement as long as they have truthful
information. Fortunately, the Court agreed with us and the FDA's
"Father Knows Best" approach was soundly rejected by the Court
which apparently found some of the agency's arguments about a
person's ability to make their own decision ridiculous.
We got a laugh out of the Court's
take on some of the FDA's arguments. In responding to the
assertion that all claims lacking "significant scientific
agreement" (we still don't know what that is) are misleading,
the Court wrote:
'As best we understand the government, its first argument runs
along the following lines: that health claims lacking
'significant scientific agreement' are inherently misleading
because they have such an awesome impact on consumers as to make
it virtually impossible for them to exercise any judgment at the
point of sale.
It would be as if the consumers were
asked to buy something while hypnotized, and therefore they are
bound to be misled. We think this contention is almost
Now things get complicated.
The issue here is whether a reasonable
person should have the right to make their own health decisions or
whether a totally corrupt Big Brother should make those decisions
But therein lies the paradox. In order for a reasonable person to
make a decision they must have information from the people on both
sides of the argument. But the FDA does not allow people to hear
both sides of the argument, thus how can Big Brother pronounce that
it has proven that a reasonable person doesn't know how to think?
In order to make a decision, a person should have the right to the
information from the people on both sides of the fence (where have
you heard that before?). The concept of "both sides" of an issue is
something the FDA is specifically commissioned by Congress and Big
Pharma to crush.
The FDA tells people how good chemotherapy is by approving these
drugs. Then the FDA tells people how bad natural medicine is by not
approving these products. Thus people know what is good about
chemotherapy (actually there is nothing good about chemotherapy) and
what is bad about natural products. Somehow, this is not telling
both sides of the story.
Thus, worrying that the American people might become healthy (and
thus not need prescription drugs), and fearing that people are smart
enough to come to a logical conclusion, the FDA has long decided
that reasonable people should not be presented with both sides of
The Freedom of Speech Issue
In essence, this is where "Freedom of Speech" enters the picture.
Without freedom of speech
presents its side of all issues to the public and suppresses any
conflicting opinions. "Free Speech" means that everyone gets to
express their opinion, even if their opinions differ from those in
government. In fact, the concept of "free speech" was specifically
designed to allow those who disagree with government to speak
without being persecuted.
Our founding fathers remembered what
happened to their ancestors before they came to America.
But of course, the FDA thinks that the Constitution does not apply
to them because they are trying to crush the opinions of those
people who think God did not flunk his chemistry course. And, of
course, when Big Brother crushes free speech it is supposedly in the
"best interests" of the nation. Exactly who is supposed to decide
what is in the "best interests" of the nation?
Our founding fathers specifically did
not think that government should be the organization to decide what
is in the "best interests" of the nation.
The "government" is made up of people who worship power, who worship
money, who worship being able to do things without getting caught,
and so on. These are exactly the people who should not be making
decisions based on the "best interests" of the nation.
Of course the real reason all tyrants (like the FDA) crush free
speech is because it is a threat to their tyranny. The FDA crushes
free speech (i.e. the alternative viewpoint) because it is a threat
to the profits of Big Pharma, and more importantly, a threat to the
retirement benefits of FDA executives and a threat to the benefits
the pharmaceutical industry provides the members of Congress.
Thus, it is in the best interests of the FDA to continue to pretend
they care about human life, to continue to suppress the truth about
alternative treatments, and above all, to continue to hide behind
the corrupt skirts of the orthodox medical community.
"The welfare of humanity is always
the alibi of tyrants."
I like these comments by Ralph Moss:
"In his classic On Liberty, John
Stuart Mill wrote that,
"over himself, over his own body
and mind, the individual is sovereign."
In 1914, Judge Cardozo ruled that,
"every human being of adult
years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be
done with his own body..."
In 1987, the Second Circuit U.S.
Court of Appeals affirmed:
"We see no reason why a patient
should not be allowed to make an informed decision to go
outside currently approved medical methods in search of an
In a masterful review, Berkeley law
professor Marjorie Shultz concluded:
"patient autonomy should be
recognized and protected as a distinct legal interest.""
Thus, according to the constitution, the
responsibility of the government should be to allow the
presentations of both sides of an issue (e.g. the issue of cancer
Furthermore, they should be proactively
enforcing the public's right to hear both sides of any health issue.
In other words, if the FDA were doing its constitutional job, it
would be severely persecuting the media (e.g. T.V., radio, printed)
for selling-out to Big Pharma and presenting only one side of the
cancer treatment issue in the media.
Here is a quote from a legal journal:
"If a health claim lies in the gray
area of science where connections between health and particular
nutrients are unclear, legislation and regulation should favor
the policy that the healthcare consumer should be provided with
more, rather than less, information whenever possible, based on
the theory that the individual is the appropriate determiner of
his or her own best interest.
This theory is consistent with the
model of communication in traditional medicine, fully inform the
patient of all possible benefits, risks and uncertainties and
then leave the final choice to him whenever possible."
In other words, informing the patient
about his health options is required in orthodox medicine, but is
forbidden in alternative medicine.
As the article states, the FDA should be requiring more information
by alternative medicine vendors, not less.
Of course the real problem is not legal or theoretical, but
political. The FDA has sold out to the same people the media has
sold out to, and is part of the suppression of truth. Some people
would call this a conspiracy, but many people don't believe in
conspiracies (I guess they still believe the earth is flat).
The purpose of the first amendment is specifically to declare that
the government does not have the right to favor one side of a
critical issue and to suppress the other side from presenting their
view. The amendment is specifically about suppression of free speech
(i.e. suppression of a viewpoint).
In other words, the intent of the constitution was that government
should not be allowed to define truth. If the government is allowed
to define truth, then they are allowed to present only one side of
the issue, the side they define as "truth."
A good example of this is the FDA Modernization Act of 1997 (FDAMA).
First, read a little about it:
"A provision in the FDA
Modernization Act of 1997 (FDAMA) provided an additional process
for manufacturers to use health claims if such claims are based
on current, published, authoritative statements from certain
federal scientific bodies.
These include only those "with
official responsibility for public health protection or research
relating to human nutrition" such as the National Institutes of
Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the
National Academy of Sciences."
The list of acceptable scientific bodies
is a "who's who" of scientific corruption. Did you notice something
interesting about this paragraph? Only government controlled
experiments are allowed to be used as scientific evidence!
Talk about blatant control of "truth."
The New Rules For Labels
Is it wrong for the
government to make an honest determination and then crush all
While this might seem like a good thing,
don't forget that government is not honest, but is corrupt and their
decisions are generally based on money, power and profit, not on
what is best for the public. For this reason, it is the intent of
the constitution to limit the authority of a corrupt government.
An honest government needs no such
"When you get into politics, you
find that all your worst nightmares about it turn out to be
true, and the people who are attracted to large concentrations
of power are precisely the ones who should be kept as far away
from it as possible."
Ken Livingstone, Member of
When our Constitution was being debated,
government was honest and many people did not see the need for the
Bill of Rights.
Fortunately, Thomas Jefferson and others
persuaded the majority that the government would not always be
honest, and that the Bill of Rights was necessary.
As a good example of how "honest" our government is (and how much
they really care about our health), consider the tobacco industry, a
long-time financial friend of Congress. Several hundred thousand
American's a year die because of tobacco products. Yet these
products are legal. These products have not been banned. Their
products only require a warning label put on them (which was
probably requested by the tobacco industry to avoid lawsuits).
The tobacco industry is also allowed to
add chemicals to the tobacco to make their products more addictive.
So why aren't some natural products allowed to be sold under the
condition that they have warning labels (e.g. liquid laetrile)?
There is no scientific evidence that laetrile is more dangerous than
tobacco!! Yet laetrile is treated as if it was more deadly than
tobacco because laetrile is not allowed to be sold even with a
Get used to double-standards when thinking about our
At the same time this is going on,
Big Brother wants to ban labels on
nutritional products that notify people of published scientific
experiments, the knowledge of which may save their life! Are you
In other words, allow a label on a product that kills you, but ban a
label on a product that may save your life. Sounds like profitable
logic to the FDA.
That is what government corruption does.
And it is this corruption that is the
target of the first amendment.
"The Court indicated in its decision
that it is poised to allow disclaimers as a way of notifying
consumers that not everyone in the scientific community agrees
that, for example, antioxidant vitamins reduce the risk of
ibid - LEF
While the court's decision is a giant
leap forward, the FDA is not about to give up so easily.
They are not about to allow disclaimers
on labels for natural products that allow the companies to tell the
whole truth on that same label. After all, the FDA has an important
mission to perform for Congress and
Big Pharma - crush the truth.
On September 1, 2003, new rules went into affect regarding the
labeling of nutritional supplements. I don't have enough information
yet about how these rules will be implemented, so I do not have a
specific comment. Based on what I have seen so far, I am not
encouraged. It appears that a tobacco-type disclaimer will be
required for most nutritional supplements, but more importantly, no
additional products (which are currently forbidden to be sold) will
be allowed to be sold.
In any case, I can say this, the FDA should be totally disbanded. It
should be eliminated and replaced with a new organization where
alternative medicine experts (who do not make their living as
practitioners) should have a huge voice in the new organization.
The new organization should be designed specifically to make sure
the news media presents both sides of all health issues. The media
should be forced to give equal time to actual alternative medicine
experts (who are not practitioners).
Furthermore, chemotherapy drugs, before they are approved, should be
proven to extend life (not based on 5 years, but 10 or more years),
compared to both refusal of treatment and alternative treatments,
before they are approved.
Shrinking tumors, comparing one toxic drug
to another, etc. should be eliminated as a criteria for approval.
There is an old saying in the Bible, Matthew 9:17:
"Neither do men put new wine into
old bottles: else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out,
and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into new bottles,
and both are preserved."
The corruption in the FDA cannot be
It is impossible to put a bicycle tire
rubber patch on a 5 foot wide hole in the bottom of a ship. The FDA
must be eliminated.
The top 500 executives in the FDA should
not be allowed to even apply for a job in the new organization
without substantive proof that they have had a long track-record of
supporting alternative medicine research.
Another Application of Freedom of
Let us suppose there are two people, Mike and Alan.
Mike goes to medical school and gets his
M.D. Alan, on the other hand, after graduating from college, takes
many additional classes on nutrition and herbal medicine. All in
all, let us suppose that both of them read an equal number of books
and spend an equal amount of time studying.
Rather than look at the degrees each holds, let us look at the books
each has read. The medical community (i.e. AMA) has been given the
legal authority to determine who can "practice medicine." Thus,
because Mike read the "medical books," he can "practice medicine."
Likewise, because Alan read the "health
books," he is not legally allowed to "practice medicine."
Thus, the medical establishment is essentially saying that the
ability to "practice medicine" is based on what you read (and what
your teacher tells you, which is the same thing). A person who reads
the wrong set of books is not allowed to "practice medicine."
Remembering that "freedom of speech" is really "freedom of
viewpoint," those with a viewpoint of orthodox medicine can
"practice medicine" and those with a viewpoint of alternative
medicine cannot "practice medicine." Thus, the government, once
again, has taken sides and crushed the opposition.
In reality, the government has an obligation to force medical
schools to teach alternative medicine along with orthodox medicine,
and then let the doctors and/or patients decide when to use each
type of medicine. But as might be expected, neither the doctor, nor
the patient, has any valid information on which to make an informed
The government should also allow non-medical doctors, who have
substantial training, to practice medicine, since they have a
differing viewpoint. Again, the patients should be fully informed of
both kinds of medicine so they can make their own decision. Of
course orthodox medicine knows that anyone with an IQ above that of
a horse, who was fully informed, would choose alternative cancer
treatments when first diagnosed.
That is not acceptable to those who
profit from Big Pharma's bottomless money chest.
It should be up to the patient (and patients give referrals when
their doctor heals them) to choose which type of doctor to go to,
and which type of treatment they receive. As mentioned above, the
patient should be given more information, not less.
Am I endorsing total chaos in the field of medicine? Let's think
about that. When a person has cancer, and decides not to go on
chemotherapy (by their own choice), where is he or she going to get
medical advice? Most likely they are going to ask their friends if
they know anything about alternative treatments for cancer. Most
likely their friends know more than an M.D. about alternative
treatments for cancer, but far too little to give any type of
Thus, we already have chaos in medicine.
There is no simple solution to the problem. Things are so messed up
right now there needs to be a total re-evaluation of cancer
treatment credentials. The bottom line is that patients should have
far more options, and far more information, in choosing a treatment
plan for themselves. Congress, the FDA, AMA, etc. have done
everything in their power to make sure that never happens.
In fact freedom of speech is all about options and information.
Patients have neither, and neither do the medical doctors.
But the real problem goes much deeper than just licenses. Another
key is good statistical information about different cancer
treatments. This is exactly where the National Institutes of Health
(NIH), National Cancer Institute (NCI) and the American Cancer
Society (ACS), etc., enter the picture. Their key job is to insure
all research money goes to orthodox medicine and that alternative
medicine research is crushed.
For example, not even medical doctors have good statistical
information about comparing the Brandt Grape Cure (applying
discoveries made since she designed her treatment plan) "cure rate"
to the chemotherapy "cure rate," for different types of cancer, etc.
But even if they did have the information, they couldn't use it.
What I am trying to say is that even if herbalists, chiropractors,
etc. started treating cancer patients legally, it wouldn't help much
because the statistical information about cancer treatments is not
available. That's why I say it is not totally a license issue.
I would not be as severely opposed to the current system if medical
doctors had good access to valid and honest (with a big emphasis on
the word: honest) statistical information and if they were allowed
to practice alternative medicine, as an M.D., without getting thrown
in jail and having their license revoked.
The corruption in Congress, the FDA, NIH, NCI, AMA and ACS, to name
but a few, not only suppresses accurate, life-saving honest
statistical information, but prohibit medical doctors from applying
(Note: Yes, I am
aware of Naturopaths (N.D.s), who are licensed to do some things in
some states, and there are some really good naturopaths who know a
lot about treating cancer, but I have some issues with the
profession as a whole because they seem to be as interested as the
medical establishment in creating chronic patients.)
Freedom of Choice in Medicine
Now that we have had a chance to talk about freedom of speech, we
can talk about freedom of choice in medicine, which has been
informally discussed above. But first, let's build a base from which
Let us talk some more about Congress and tobacco. As mentioned
above, Congress continues to protect the tobacco industry and
continues to allow them to sell tobacco products to Americans
Thus, people have "freedom of choice to
The rationale is that virtually everyone knows the dangers of
cigarettes, etc., thus they should have the right to kill themselves
and smoke if they wish. Thus, people have a legal right to slowly
commit suicide by smoking and chewing tobacco, etc.
First of all, it is a big lie. A person cannot comprehend the
dangers of smoking until they get emphysema or lung cancer, and then
it is too late. If a person had to spend a month in a hospital,
handcuffed to the hospital bed of someone dying of emphysema and
lung cancer, then they would comprehend the dangers of smoking.
Likewise, because the tobacco industry
adds addictive narcotics to tobacco, and many other chemicals, a
person really doesn't have the choice to start and stop smoking at
In any case, Congress has, at the same time, consistently forbidden
Americans from having the choice of letting their medical doctor
work with them using alternative treatments. As if that weren't bad
enough, the restriction is still in force even after orthodox
treatments have totally failed and the patient has been sent home to
Congress has also consistently forbidden
Americans to be treated for cancer by herbalists, nutritionists,
etc., even after the patient is sent home to die.
Thus we come to the following conclusion:
Congress allows you to choose
which tobacco product you will use to slowly and painfully
Congress allows the tobacco
industry to add many chemicals to their products which make
their products more addictive
If you get cancer, Congress
forces you to take chemotherapy, which slowly and painfully
If you get cancer, Congress does
not allow you to have your medical doctor treat you with
alternative medicine, which is painless, builds your immune
system and selectively kills cancer cells
If you get cancer, Congress does
not allow you to go to a non-medical doctor for medical
treatments for cancer, even though it may save your life
To make things even more absurd,
even if you have been given up for dead by the medical
community, you still do not have the legal choice to have
your M.D. treat you with alternative medicine or go to a
non-M.D. to be treated
Congress has allowed the FDA,
NIH and NCI to crush all valid statistical information about
You might conclude from this that
Congress wants you to die.
Or you might think that Congressmen are
stupid. Actually they don't care if you live or die, and they are
not stupid, but the list above shows a clear pattern - Congress
makes decisions based on what is best for large corporations. The
job of Congress is to protect the profits of large corporations and
has nothing to do with protecting the health of American citizens.
The problem is not IQ, it never is, the problem is corruption.
Congress has sold America's soul and kept the proceeds. The majority
of members of Congress have gladly and quickly sold their integrity
to the highest bidder.
President Abraham Lincoln said it best:
"We may congratulate ourselves that
this cruel war [civil war] is nearing its end. It has cost a
vast amount of treasure and blood ... It has indeed been a
trying hour for the Republic; but I see in the near future a
crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for
the safety of my country.
As a result of war, corporations
have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will
follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to
prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people
until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands, and the Republic
I feel at this moment more anxiety
for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst
of war. God grant that my suspicions may prove
President Abraham Lincoln
The passage appears in a letter from Lincoln to Col. William F.
Elkins, Nov. 21, 1864, Hertz II, 954, in Archer H. Shaw, The
Lincoln Encyclopedia (New York: Macmillan, 1950), p. 40
For Further Reading
Freedom of Informed Choice: FDA
vs. Nutrient Supplements - Common Sense Press (800) 542-3230
"The Doctrine of Commercial
Speech in First Amendment Jurisprudence" - Cato Institute
Policy Analysis (Sept. 23, 1991)
"The FDA Knows Best... Or Does
It? First Amendment Protection of Health Claims on Dietary
Supplements: Pearson v. Shalala" - BYU Journal of Public
Law, Volume 15
Back to Contents
Chapter 13 - Who Do You Believe - Follow The Money Trail
Who do you believe? Follow The Money
When I was first researching cancer, I ran into both kinds of web
sites, the sites controlled by orthodox medicine and the sites
controlled by alternative medicine.
The quackwatch page (one of the orthodox
sites) caused me to wonder whether all of this alternative medicine
stuff was a bunch of baloney. Even though I am an expert at
Machiavellian tactics and logic, I didn't know enough about the
scientific studies they were referring to to figure out what was
Then I came across the book Alive and Well, by Dr. Binzel. After
reading the first two chapters of this book the picture became very
clear. I had seen this same pattern before when dealing with physics
and energy (although different government agencies were involved). I
saw how the Department of Energy was suppressing discovery after
discovery which would lead to very cheap energy costs (especially
In the same way, the effort to fight
alternative treatments for cancer is intentional, well organized,
well funded and includes U.S. government agencies (e.g. FDA, NIH,
Most people in America would never consider taking alternative
treatments for cancer.
This is because the media and orthodox
medical establishment have total control over everything a typical
person hears in their life. Unless a person is an expert at internet
research (and quite frankly that wouldn't do any good unless they
knew what to look for), or they happened to run into someone who
knows what is going on (and if they did they would probably consider
them to be whack-o because they have been so efficiently
brainwashed), they will never know the truth about anything.
I should mention how the establishment crushed the Linus Pauling
heart disease prevention program. They didn't say anything about it
in the media, good or bad (i.e. they blacklisted it), and eventually
the truth simply died out. That was all it took.
There are many "blacklisted"
organizations and truths that are forbidden to be uttered by the
As a second example of blacklisting, when was the last time you
heard a member of the "John Birch Society" talk for five minutes or
more on the television (both Binzel and G. Edward Griffin belong or
belonged to the JBS, and others)? Most people under 40 have never
heard of the John Birch Society. I mention these things because
these are just two of many examples of how potent blacklisting is,
and more importantly, how overwhelming what you know is controlled
totally by large, corrupt corporations that advertise.
The owners of virtually all television
stations, large and small, are also large corporations. I should
mention that General Electric, which owns NBC, manufactures medical
GE Medical Systems manufactures very
expensive equipment used by both cancer doctors and heart disease
"In addition to its industrial
holdings, General Electric owns NBC which controls the following
9 television stations including
25% of more of the following
the History Channel
Plus these key news programs:
Now do you understand why you have never
hear anything positive about alternative treatments for cancer or
alternative heart disease prevention programs?
It is all about money, not people.
Follow the pharmaceutical industry money
trail and you will know with perfect certainty who is on their side.
If someone that receives Big Pharma money says anything truthful
about alternative medicine, the money dries up immediately.
This book can be summarized in several bullet points:
Since the 1910s medical progress
in curing cancer has come to a virtual dead end. The reason:
surgery, chemotherapy and radiation treatments are so, so
profitable for pharmaceutical companies, chemical companies,
petroleum companies, doctors, hospitals, medical equipment
makers, charities, media companies, and many other
The most important concept in
chemotherapy is the concept of "remission." However,
remission, response, tumor markers, etc. are terms that are
meaningless. They are supposed to equate to "length of life
since diagnosis," but in fact there is no correlation
between being in remission and "length of life since
"Cure rates" are another
deception tactic of orthodox medicine. Rather than use the
logical concept of "length of life since diagnosis,"
orthodox medicine uses a meaningless statistic based on the
percentage of people who live for 5 years between diagnosis
and death. This statistic is easily manipulated to make
orthodox treatments look more and more effective. But the
only thing that really improves is their ability to deceive.
Chemotherapy drugs are evaluated
by the FDA based on tumor size reduction and other
irrelevant measurements, not on the basis of extending the
life of the patient compared to a person not taking orthodox
treatments. When they talk about extending a person's life,
it is based on comparing one or more toxic poisons to
another group of toxic poisons.
In most cases a person would
live longer, and have a far higher quality of life, if they
took no orthodox treatments for cancer.
Chemotherapy generally does far
more harm to a patient than good. It destroys the immune
system, making it more difficult for some alternative
treatments to work, loses valuable time for the patient to
take more effective treatments, causes people to die of
complications directly and indirectly from chemotherapy,
causes enormous pain and sickness, etc. Chemotherapy is
virtually worthless, but it is very profitable.
The uselessness of surgery,
chemotherapy and radiation is hidden behind a maze of very
sophisticated false and misleading statistics, misleading
definitions, meaningless concepts and many other techniques.
Above all, there is a complete failure to compare
chemotherapy to the statistics of people who refuse orthodox
treatments and there is an intentional failure to
meaningfully compare the Big 3 to alternative treatments.
Cancer research today is largely
a fraud. If only a small percentage of research money were
spent on studying alternative treatments, known to work,
cancer would be a sad footnote in history books within 10
years. (Note: It is absolutely critical that alternative
health zealots control that research and money or it will be
just another scam.)
In comparing Vitamin C, and
perhaps by taking a few other vitamins and minerals with
Vitamin C, patients who avoid orthodox treatments would live
several times longer than similar patients who took orthodox
treatments. They would have a far better immune system, have
far less pain (zero pain from the treatment), feel better
and have a much higher quality of life. In other words,
Vitamin C therapy is far superior to the Big 3.
Yet Vitamin C therapy, even with
the Hoffer nutrients added, is not one of the "top 100"
alternative treatments for cancer. It's cure rate is far too
low to make that list.
Bogus scientific studies have
been commissioned by the NIH specifically to discredit valid
studies and the testimonies of tens of thousands of patients
cured of cancer with alternative treatments.
The media are nothing but
worthless whores. They sell-out to the highest bidder, which
is always the corrupt pharmaceutical industry. Everything
they say is aimed to please those that pay the most.
The media has many different
techniques they routinely use to brainwash the general
public. They lie, withhold information (by far their biggest
tactic), deceive you, tell half-truths, and so on.
The job of the FDA, NIH and NCI
is to suppress the truth about alternative treatments for
cancer. Their number one job is to insure there is "no
scientific evidence" for alternative treatments so that
alternative treatments can be legally suppressed. They are
corrupt to the core and should be disbanded.
The reason for the FDA, etc.
suppressing the truth of alternative medicine is so they can
continue to suppress the availability of alternative
medicine substances and so the AMA can suppress the
availability of patients to get alternative treatments from
Congress, whose job is to
protect Americans and eliminate the corruption in
Government, are largely inept and could easily be accused of
intentionally "looking the other way" at what the FDA is
doing, just as they have been "looking the other way" at
what the tobacco industry has been doing for over 70 years.
Congress is suppose to be the
watchdogs of the American people. But not only does Congress
take bribes and let the enemy inside the fence, but Congress
cuts holes in the fence and prohibits people from fixing the
holes which they cut.
Not only does the media provide
a lot of misinformation (and withholding of facts), but the
internet also has an enormous amount of misinformation about
alternative treatments. Universities frequently pass on this
The scientific evidence for
alternative treatments for cancer is overwhelmingly superior
to the scientific treatments for orthodox medicine. For
those who understand statistics, the difference is greater
than 1,000 standard deviations in some comparisons.
Alternative treatments are so good, many thousands of people
cure their own cancer without any medical help.
The primary way the medical
establishment tries to suppress the tens of thousands of
testimonials of people cured of their cancer by alternative
medicine (most of them were sent home to die by orthodox
medicine before they started alternative treatments) is to
talk about "spontaneous remission." The joint concepts of
"spontaneous remission" and "psychological remission" are
statistical nonsense and are nothing more than overt lies.
In short, American's have been sold a
"Bill of Goods."
Alternative treatments work, but they
are suppressed. Orthodox treatments don't work, but by using
sophisticated statistics, clever definitions, etc. it appears to the
public that they do work.
I have called this a "war." When people hear the term "war," they
think of guns, tanks, jet airplanes and soldiers. They think about
mindless tyrants shaking their fists on television.
But the war in medicine is very different. The tyrants in this war
hide their real intentions. This is a "war" where the weapons are
Welcome to the 21st century,
the century were America's most dangerous enemies are within.
"A nation can survive its fools and
even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within.
An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and he
carries his banners openly against the city. But the traitor
moves among those within the gates freely, his sly whispers
rustling through all alleys, heard in the very halls of
For the traitor appears no traitor;
he speaks in the accents familiar to his victim, and he wears
their face and their garments and he appeals to the baseness
that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a
nation; he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine
the pillars of a city; he infects the body politic so that it
can no longer resist.
A murderer is less to be feared. The
traitor is the plague."
Marcus Tullius Cicero,
Roman Orator - 106-43 B.C.
Back to Contents