Cancer is the second leading cause
of death in the United States
Half of all men and one-third of all women in the
US will develop cancer during their lifetimes. Today, millions
of people are living with cancer or have had cancer. The
risk of developing most types of cancer can be reduced by
changes in a person's lifestyle, for example, by quitting
smoking and eating a better diet. The sooner a cancer is
found and treatment begins, the better are the chances for
living for many years. - American Cancer Society Although
the American Cancer Society and many other orthodox medically
endorsed organizations state that prevention of cancer is
dependent on diet and lifestyle choices, they do nothing
to help people take the next step toward such practices!
Instead, We The People, are generally left with the following
Chemotherapy / Radiation
In the Physicians Desk Reference, available in any
library or doctor's office, the top 10 chemotherapy drugs
used in the USA all have cancer as a listed side effect. In
fact, depending on how you interpret the statistics, more
cancer patients die from the chemotherapy than of the cancer.
The medical statisticians count these deaths as a success
for chemotherapy because the patient did not die of cancer.
A select few know that chemotherapy drugs are not FDA approved.
They are legally administered under the "Rule of Probable
Cause", which states that experimental drugs may be used
if the side effect of the drug is no worse than the end effect
of the disease. In fact, every chemotherapy bottle is stamped
"For Experimental Use Only" and the patient must
sign a release before the doctor will prescribe or administer
Do We Need A New Approach to Cancer?
In 1971 Richard Nixon announced the War on Cancer, and promised
a cure by the 1977 bicentennial. In each of the 25 plus years
since, more Americans have died of cancer than the year before.
The failure of chemotherapy to control cancer has become apparent
even to the oncology establishment. Scientific American featured
a recent cover story entitled: "The War on Cancer -- It's
Being Lost." In it, eminent epidemiologist John C. Bailar
III, MD, PhD, Chairman of the Department of Epidemiology and
Biostatistics at McGill University cited the relentless increase
in cancer deaths in the face of growing use of toxic chemotherapy.
He concluded that scientists must look in new directions if
they are ever to make progress against this unremitting killer.
Adding its voice, the prestigious British medical journal
The Lancet, decrying the failure of conventional therapy to
stop the rise in breast cancer deaths, noted the discrepancy
between public perception and reality. "If one were to
believe all the media hype, the triumphalism of the [medical]
profession in published research, and the almost weekly miracle
breakthroughs trumpeted by the cancer charities, one might
be surprised that women are dying at all from this cancer"
it observed. Noting that conventional therapies -- chemotherapy,
radiation and surgery -- had been pushed to their limits with
dismal results, the editorial called on researchers to "challenge
dogma and redirect research efforts along more fruitful lines."
John Cairns, professor of microbiology at Harvard University,
published a devastating 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." In fact, chemotherapy is
curative in very few cancers -- testicular, Hodgkin's, choriocarcinoma,
childhood leukemia. In most common solid tumors -- lung, colon,
breast, etc. -- chemotherapy is NOT curative.
In an article entitled "Chemotherapy: Snake-Oil Remedy?"
that appeared in the Los Angeles Times of 1/9/87, Dr. Martin
F. Shapiro explained 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." Dr. Shapiro
is hardly alone. Alan C. Nixon, PhD, Past President of the
American Chemical Society wrote 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."
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.
Famed German biostatistician Ulrich Abel PhD also found in
a similar 1989 study that "the personal views of many
oncologists seem to be in striking contrast to communications
intended for the public." Breast cancer activist Rose
Kushner wrote that by 1981 "indiscriminate, automatic
adjuvant chemotherapy was replacing the Halsted radical mastectomy
as therapeutic overkill in the United States." Thomas
Nealon MD, Professor of Surgery at NYU School of Medicine,
concluded in 1990 that "The treatment of this tumor now
has slipped from too much surgery to too much adjuvant therapy."
Why so much use of chemotherapy if it does so little good?
Well for one thing, drug companies provide huge economic incentives
In 1990, $3.53 billion was spent on chemotherapy. By 1994
that figure had more than doubled to $7.51 billion. This relentless
increase in chemo use was accompanied by a relentless increase
in cancer deaths. Oncologist Albert Braverman MD wrote 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.
the growth in chemotherapy in the face of such
failure? A look at the financial interrelationships
between a large cancer center such as Memorial
Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center and the companies
that make billions selling chemo drugs is revealing.
James Robinson III, Chairman of the MSKCC Board
of Overseers and Managers, is a director of Bristol-Myers
Squibb, the world's largest producer of chemotherapy
drugs. Richard Gelb, Vice-Chairman of the MSKCC
board is Bristol-Myers Chairman of the Board.
Richard Furlaud, another MSKCC board member, recently
retired as Bristol Myers' president. Paul Marks
MD, MSKCC's President and CEO, is a director of
There are more and more
reports by establishment oncologists doubting the value of
chemotherapy, even to the point of rejecting it outright.
One of these, cancer biostatistician Dr. Ulrich Abel, of Heidelberg,
Germany, issued a monograph titled Chemotherapy of Advanced
Epithelial Cancer in 1990. Epithelial cancers comprise the
most common forms of adenocarcinoma: lung, breast, prostate,
colon, etc. After ten years as a statistician in clinical
oncology, Abel became increasingly uneasy. "A sober and
unprejudiced analysis of the literature," he wrote, "has
rarely revealed any therapeutic success by the regimens in
question in treating advanced epithelial cancer." While
chemotherapy is being used more and more extensively, more
than a million people die worldwide of these cancers annually
- and a majority have received some form of chemotherapy before
dying. Abel further concluded, after polling hundreds of cancer
doctors, "The personal view of many oncologists seems
to be in striking contrast to communications intended for
the public." Abel cited studies that have shown "that
many oncologists would not take chemotherapy themselves if
they had cancer." (The Cancer Chronicles, December, 1990.)
"Even though toxic drugs often do effect a response,
such as a partial or complete shrinkage of the tumor, this
reduction does not prolong expected survival," Abel finds.
"Sometimes, in fact, the cancer returns more aggressively
than before, since the chemo fosters the growth of resistant
cell lines." Besides, the chemo has severely damaged
the body's own defenses, the immune system and often the kidneys
as well as the liver.
In an especially dramatic table, Dr. Abel displays the results
of chemotherapy in patients with various types of cancers,
as the improvement of survival rates, compared to untreated
patients. This table shows:
-In colorectal cancer:
no evidence survival is improved.
-Gastric cancer: no clear evidence.
-Pancreatic cancer: Study completely negative. Longer survival
in control (untreated) group.
-Bladder: no clinical trial done.
-Breast cancer: No direct evidence that chemotherapy prolongs
survival; its use is "ethically questionable."
-Ovarian cancer: no direct evidence.
-Cervix and uterus: No improved survival.
-Head and neck: no survival benefit but occasional shrinkage
The Nov. 17, 1994 Wall Street Journal, in a front page article
on political pressure being exerted for insurance companies
to pay for bone marrow transplants in advanced breast cancer,
experts give a totally negative report on this approach. The
procedure, called ABMT (Autologous Bone Marrow Transplant)
involves temporarily removing some of the patient's bone marrow,
applying a potentially lethal dose of chemotherapy, then returning
the marrow to the patient's body. The cost of this procedure
is in excess of $100,000.00.
The University of Colorado's Dr. Jones, continues the Journal,
claims that, with conventional chemotherapy, not more than
2% of patients with spreading breast cancer get a positive
response. A non-profit independent technology assessment agency,
the Emergency Care Research Institute (ECRI), says that for
the average woman with the most advanced form of breast cancer,
the high dose ABMT procedure is not only worthless, but also
likely to shorten her life. This report by the ECRI is based
on an analysis of 40 studies of ABMT and similar procedures
involving a total of 1,017 patients, and 61 studies covering
4,852 patients who had conventional chemotherapy Dr. Nelson
Erlick, the project's lead analyst, concluded that "many
patients are led to believe that this (ABMT) is a successful
therapy. We found no evidence whatsoever that it provides