Cancer, the second leading killer in most Western industrialised nations, is a disease which has crept from an incidence rate of around 1 in 500 in 1900 to between 1 in 2 to 3 today. Over 600,000 people are expected to die from cancer in America in 2004, and yet, in spite of supposedly the brightest and the best walking the corridors of our leading cancer research institutions, armed with the latest technology and limitless budgets, the incidence rates for cancer continue to rise.
Breast cancer serves as a poignant yardstick. This type of malignancy is now the leading cause of death in women between the ages of 35 and 54. In 1971, a woman's lifetime risk of contracting breast cancer was 1 in 14. Today it is 1 in 8. Rachel's Environment and Health Weekly, No. 571 reports: "More American women have died of breast cancer in the past two decades than all the Americans killed in World War 1, World War 2, the Korean War and Vietnam War combined."
The amazing thing is, most physicians in the world today have absolutely no idea what cancer is, or even how it is contracted. Some believe cancer is virus-related. Others believe the cause is parasites. Others yet examine the environmental causal link.
Let's look at what society generally knows about cancer and see how it stacks up with the truth. Most believe that:
During the twelve years that I and my fellow researchers conducted our investigation into the cancer industry, what we found dispelled any illusions that cancer medicine was working in any way for the benefit of humanity. Here is what we found:
THE POLITICS OF BIG CANCER AND THE
One such leading critic of the cancer industry has been Dr Samuel S Epstein, chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition and a world-renowned toxicologist and Professor of Occupational and Environmental Medicine at the University of Illinois Medical Center in Chicago. Epstein's relentless attacks against corporate vested interests in the chemical and medical industries concerning the avoidable causes of cancer have led to the public gaining a far wider knowledge of these issues. Epstein has no hesitation in indicting 'Cancer Inc.', comprising the American Medical Association, the National Cancer Institute, the American Cancer Society (ACS), the cancer charities and the pharmaceutical industry, as well as other cancer administrative bodies elsewhere in the world, for losing the winnable war against cancer. Epstein contends:
"We are not winning the war against cancer, we are losing the war. The number of Americans getting cancer each year has escalated over recent decades, while our ability to treat and cure most common cancers has remained virtually unchanged.
The National Cancer Institute and the American Cancer Society have misled and confused the public and Congress by repeated false claims that we are winning the war against cancer - claims made to create public and Congressional support for massive increases in budgetary allocations."
Quentin D Young, MD, president of the American Public Health Association, agrees with Epstein and highlights the chief environmental causes of cancer, which must be addressed if we are to turn the tide on the disease:
"Billions of public dollars are being misspent in an ill-conceived 'war on cancer' - a war we are losing because we are not addressing the increasingly carcinogenic environment that man has created. We have introduced these creations into our water and air, our food chain, our habitation, our workplace, and into the products produced there. In failing to allocate these resources for prevention, we are fighting the wrong war."
John Cairns, professor of microbiology at Harvard University, recorded in his scathing 1985 critique in Scientific American: "Aside from certain rare cancers, it is not possible to detect any sudden changes in the death rates for any of the major cancers that could be credited to chemotherapy. Whether any of the common cancers can be cured by chemotherapy has yet to be established."
Making the point that chemotherapy is not curative, and actually has very little effect on the major cancers, Dr Martin F Shapiro stated in the Los Angeles Times that "...while some oncologists inform their patients of the lack of evidence that treatments work... others may well be misled by scientific papers that express unwarranted optimism about chemotherapy. Still others respond to an economic incentive. Physicians can earn much more money running active chemotherapy practices than they can providing solace and relief... to dying patients and their families."
Alan C Nixon, PhD, erstwhile president of the American Chemical Society, declares that "...as a chemist trained to interpret data, it is incomprehensible to me that physicians can ignore the clear evidence that chemotherapy does much, much more harm than good."
Oncologist Albert Braverman MD told the world in 1991 that "...no disseminated neoplasm (cancer) incurable in 1975 is curable today... Many medical oncologists recommend chemotherapy for virtually any tumor, with a hopefulness undiscouraged by almost invariable failure."
Christian Brothers, a retail organisation forcefully shut down by the American Food & Drug Administration (FDA) in 2000 and its CEO jailed, states: "In 1986, McGill Cancer Center scientists sent a questionnaire to 118 doctors who treated non-small-cell lung cancer. More than 3/4 of them recruited patients and carried out trials of toxic drugs for lung cancer. They were asked to imagine that they themselves had cancer, and were asked which of six current trials they themselves would choose. 64 of the 79 respondents would not consent to be in a trial containing cisplatin, a common chemotherapy drug. Fifty-eight found all the trials unacceptable. Their reason? The ineffectiveness of chemotherapy and its unacceptable degree of toxicity."
Dr Ralph Moss was the Assistant Director of Public Affairs at probably America's most famous cancer research institution, Memorial Sloan Kettering in Manhattan. He states: "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 a patient."
Professor Charles Mathe, French cancer specialist, makes this astonishing declaration: "If I contracted cancer, I would never go to a standard cancer treatment centre. Cancer victims who live far from such centres have a chance."
From another angle, Dr John Gofman's mammoth research attacks 'preventative' measures, such as routine mammograms, for causing the very illness they are designed to prevent:
"Breast cancer is a largely PREVENTABLE disease, and we reach that good news because of our finding that a large share of recent and current breast cancer in the United States is CERTAINLY due to past medical irradiation of the breasts with x-rays - at all ages, including infancy and childhood. Much of today's radiation dosage is preventable, without any interference with necessary diagnostic radiology, and hence many future breast cancers need not occur."
Epstein concurs with the risks mammograms and x-rays in general pose for the unknowing patient:
"X-rays are carcinogenic. The more X-rays you submit to and the greater the dose, the greater is your risk of cancerÉ Whatever you may be told, refuse routine mammograms to detect early breast cancer, especially if you are pre-menopausal. The X-rays may actually increase your chances of getting cancerÉ. Very few circumstances, if any, should persuade you to have X-rays taken if you are pregnant. The future risks of leukaemia to your unborn child, not to mention birth defects, are just not worth it."
Breast cancer patients are certainly at risk of developing lung cancer after radiation. In one study of 31 patients who had received radiotherapy for breast cancer, 19 went on to develop a lung cancer, on average, seventeen years later, mostly in the lung located on the same side as the breast that had been irradiated. Some oncologists believe that the lung is especially sensitive to radiation damage, either scar tissue or inflammation - which would tend to argue against high-dose radiotherapy for lung cancer. For Hodgkin's Disease, radiotherapy also poses a risk of breast cancer years later. In rectal cancer, animal studies have demonstrated the descending colon may be especially susceptible to cancer caused by radiation, particularly after surgery, where blood vessels are joined up. The current trend for health departments to promote routine and regular mammograms for early detection of breast cancers is also dangerous nonsense, given the evidence.
The patent failure of modern medicine to halt cancer is now becoming obvious, as the strategies Big Cancer uses to cover up a disaster of its own making are unmasked and exposed for the sham they have become. For instance, in August 1998, the huge MD Anderson Comprehensive Cancer Center in Houston was sued for making the unsubstantiated claim that it cures "well over 50% of people with cancer." Leaflets were deposited in mailboxes throughout the Houston area by MD Anderson in an effort to solicit funds to continue their 'war against cancer.' Misrepresentations and conflicts of interests abound within the cancer industry. For example, the wretched performance of the world's largest 'non-profit' institution, the American Cancer Society (ACS), is examined in the appendix section entitled Conflicts of Interest.
Environmental causations are repeatedly downplayed by Big Cancer, which invariably follows a 'blame the patient' course in explaining the rising causes of cancer. It also partially explains the rise in cancer incidence by alleging that earlier and more accurate detection has inflated the numbers of cancer incidence that were in fact already existing. Another strategy is to state that more people are contracting cancer because they are living longer and therefore stand a statistically higher risk of contracting the disease. Both these allegations are completely false. If age were a factor in cancer, then certainly the Hunzas and other long-lived cultures would be riddled with the disease. Clearly they are not. These strategies serve only to highlight clearly Cancer Inc's extreme reluctance to finger its cousins, Big Industry and Big Food, as the leading cancer felons worldwide today.
Cancer Inc. spares no effort in vilifying and pillorying alternative and non-toxic treatments which have shown a clinical track record of efficacy. Proponents of these treatments have been consistently harassed and defamed, and in certain cases jailed for the stand they have taken on this issue. The unpatentable treatment for cancer we will examine in a moment is not popular with an establishment that has shown itself eminently determined to keep its drug gravy train firmly on the rails.
Extracted from B17 Metabolic Therapy by Phillip Day