Conventional “Truth”

In an Independent (UK) news article of December 8, 2003, Allen Rosesl, a vice-president of GlaxoSmithKline (a large international pharmaceutical company) was quoted as saying, “most (cancer) drugs work in 30 to 50 per cent of people” (who take them). This is in stark contrast to a 2007 study published by the Journal Clinical Oncology. The study was based on an analysis of the results of all the randomized, controlled clinical trials (RCTs) performed in Australia and the US that reported a statistically significant increase in 5-year survival due to the use of chemotherapy in adult malignancies (so the study was on the ‘good’ drugs).

Survival data were drawn from the Australian cancer registries and the US National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) registry spanning the period January 1990 until January 2004 (I gave you this website already so search it as well). The authors found that the contribution of chemotherapy to 5-year survival in adults was:

  • 2.3 percent in Australia
  • 2.1 percent in the USA

They emphasize that, for reasons explained in detail in the study, these figures “should be regarded as the upper limit of effectiveness” (i.e., they are an optimistic rather than a pessimistic estimate).  So where did Mr. Rosesl get the figure that his company’s chemotherapy “works on 30-50%” of patients? I have no idea! It is amazing how the human mind can justify actions that benefit the flesh!

A study of over 10,000 patients shows clearly that chemo’s supposedly strong track record with Hodgkin’s disease (lymphoma) is actually a lie. Patients who underwent chemo were 14 times more likely to develop leukemia and 6 times more likely to develop cancers of the bones, joints, and soft tissues than those patients who did not undergo chemotherapy (NCI Journal 87:10).

As I previously stated, safe and effective plant based treatments (nutrition, herbs) cannot produce large profits because they cannot be patented. Pharmaceutical companies need large profits to pay for the expensive FDA approved clinical trials, so plant based treatments never get FDA approval to treat a disease. Nutritional companies simply cannot afford them!

So, nutritional therapies go un-noticed and poo-poo-ed by doctors while chemotherapies get pushed by oncologists as the standard of care regardless of the lack of evidence.  From the December 12, 2002 issue of Journal of the American Medical Association, in a review with James Spencer Malpas, M.D., D.Phil. St. Bartholomew’s Hospital London, United Kingdom:

“A recent randomized trial of treatment for stage one Multiple Myeloma by Riccardi and colleagues (British Journal of Cancer 2000; 82:1254-60) showed no advantage of conventional chemotherapy over no (no chemo at all) treatment.”

The above statement is in direct contrast to popular belief that chemo is likely to help you. The reason for this belief is statements like this:

“1998 was truly one of the most exciting years for cancer research,” said Harmon Eyre, MD, executive vice president for research and medical affairs for the American Cancer Society (ACS). “While we are closer than ever to finding answers…” he continued, followed by a pitch for more donations.

Another popular belief that is repeated in movies and TV shows is that not taking chemotherapy is dumb, cowardice, and completely irresponsible. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is the smart, cancer patient who does enough research to learn the fraud of conventional cancer theories and only the brave who stand up against the pressures of oncologists bent on forcing people into what is not in their best interest.

Understand, I do NOT get involved with the decision making process of whether a patient should take chemo, radiation, surgery, or alternative care.  However, I am sick and tired of hearing that people choosing to do the later are crazy and ill-informed. Look at the real statistics and make a well-informed decision! YOU are the one who has the diagnosis so you better do some of your own research. One need only ‘google’ chemotherapy effectiveness and you will read as many articles as you desire on the fallacies of their success.

I’m not even saying that chemo may not be necessary at times; just be wise, NOT dogmatic. Use these harsh approaches to squelch an aggressive tumor to allow more time to do what’s right and necessary to change the milieu.

Who is Telling the Truth?

In 1986 McGill Cancer Center scientists surveyed 118 oncologists who specialized in lung cancer. They were asked if they would take chemo if they developed lung cancer. Three-quarters replied that they WOULD NOT TAKE CHEMO. (From “Reclaiming Our Health” by John Robbins, 1996. Published by HJ Kramer, Box 1082, Tiburon, CA 94920). Although 1986 seems like a long time ago, chemo drugs have changed very little since then, if at all.

In 1984 an unusual convention of doctors was held in Chicago. Nine eminent physicians from across the United States spoke to an auditorium packed with colleagues. The conference, entitled ‘Dissent in Medicine’ was to discuss the propensity of the nation’s medical hierarchy to propagate half-truths. Among the speakers was Alan S. Levin, M.D., professor of immunology at the University of California, San Francisco, Medical School, who stated that “Practicing physicians are intimidated into using regimes which they know do not work. One of the most glaring examples is chemotherapy, which does not work for the majority of cancers.”

Ulrich Abel was a German epidemiologist and biostatistician. In the eighties, he contacted over 350 medical centers around the world requesting them to furnish him with anything they had published on the subject of cancer. By the time he published his report and subsequent book (Chemotherapy of Advanced Epithelial Cancer, Stuttgart: Hippokrates Verlag GmbH, 1990) he may well have known more about chemotherapy than any other person.

His report, later reviewed by the German Magazine Der Spiegel in 1990 and summarized by Ralph Moss in an article entitled “Chemo’s ‘Berlin Wall’ Crumbles” (Cancer Chronicles, Dec 1990, p.4), described chemotherapy as a “scientific wasteland” and that neither physician nor patient were willing to give it up even though there was no scientific evidence that it worked:

“Success of most chemotherapies is appalling…There is no scientific evidence for its ability to extend in any appreciable way the lives of patients suffering from the most common organic cancer… Chemotherapy for malignancies too advanced for surgery, which accounts for 80% of all cancers, is a scientific wasteland.”

-Dr Uhlrich Abel,Chemotherapy of Advanced Epithelial Cancer, Stuttgart, 1990

Let’s hear from a couple of physicians and doctors who have not yet succumbed to the heavy hand of the cancer industry:

“…as a chemist trained to interpret data, it is incomprehensible to me that physicians can ignore the clear evidence that chemotherapy does much, much more harm than good.” – Alan C Nixon, PhD, former president of the American Chemical Society.

Walter Last, writing in The Ecologist, reported recently: “After analyzing cancer survival statistics for several decades, Dr. Hardin Jones, Professor at the University of California, concluded “…patients are as well or better off untreated.” Jones’ disturbing assessment has never been refuted.

Professor Charles Mathe declared: “If I contracted cancer, I would never go to a standard cancer treatment center. Cancer victims who live far from such centers have a chance.”

“Many medical oncologists recommend chemotherapy for virtually any tumor, with a hopefulness undiscouraged by almost invariable failure,” Albert Braverman MD 1991 Lancet 1991 337 p901 “Medical Oncology in the 90s.

“Most cancer patients in this country die of chemotherapy. Chemotherapy does not eliminate breast, colon, or lung cancers. This fact has been documented for over a decade, yet doctors still use chemotherapy for these tumors,” Dr. Allen Levin, MD UCSF The Healing of Cancer.

“Despite widespread use of chemotherapies, breast cancer mortality has not changed in the last 70 years,” Thomas Dao, MD NEJM Mar 1975 292 p 707.

Alternative Therapies science journal recently published two articles showing that since the 1970’s, 280 peer-reviewed studies, 50 of which were human studies involving 8,521 patients, have consistently shown that natural treatments containing antioxidants and other nutrients do not interfere with other therapeutic treatments, such as traditional chemo and radiation.  (1), (2)  In fact, not only do they not interfere, the research has shown that these natural treatments can actually enhance the therapeutic effects of other treatments, while decreasing side effects and protecting normal tissue. (1), (2)  Furthermore, in 15 human studies, 3,738 patients who took natural treatments actually had increased survival times.  (1), (2)

The joke, of course, is that the same oncologists who pontificate on the dangers of natural treatments also prescribe amifostine and dexrazoxane, two prescription antioxidants generally used during chemo and radiation treatments.  Amifostine is owned by MedImmune and dexrazoxane (Zinecard) is owned by Pfizer – both put a particular ‘spin’ on natural antioxidants so they can be labeled and sold as prescriptions.  Both these pharmaceutical companies rank in the list of some of the largest (MedImmune reported $1.5 billion in revenue in 2005; it was bought by AstraZeneca for $15.6 billion in 2007.  Pfizer reported $48 billion in revenue in 2007 and $68 billion in 2010 is consistently ranked in the top 7 biggest pharmaceutical companies in the world).  Traditional oncology has to get its story straight.  Either natural treatments are bad, or, they are a huge support and provide major benefits for patients undergoing traditional chemo and radiation.

(1)   Simone, C.B., et al.  Antioxidants and Other Nutrients Do Not Interfere with Chemotherapy or Radiation Therapy and Can Increase Kill and Increase Survival, Part I.  Alternative Therapies. 2007 Jan/Feb; 13(1): 22-28.

(2)   Simone, C.B., et al.  Antioxidants and Other Nutrients Do Not Interfere with Chemotherapy or Radiation Therapy and Can Increase Kill and Increase Survival, Part II.  Alternative Therapies. 2007 Mar/Apr; 13(2): 40-47.

Tamoxifen and Breast Cancer

Another example of distortion is an Oxford University study published in The Lancet which touts the effectiveness of today’s conventional cancer treatments. It supports the use of chemotherapy and states that women who used tamoxifen for five years reduced the breast cancer death rate by one-third. Really???? This story was picked up by many newspapers and got wide distribution. However, if you look closely at the statistics, you find that your odds of getting breast cancer without using tamoxifen is 1.3%, and with tamoxifen it drops to .68%. That represents a 49% difference between the two numbers (as cited), but just a little over one-half of one-percent difference (.62%) in real terms.  This is a prime example of how drug companies manipulate statistics! One half percent in real world terms is vastly different from the 49% improvement stated in the studies – and hardly worth this risk:

  • Tamoxifen can cause cancer of the uterus, ovaries, and gastrointestinal tract while it reduces the risk by .62% (that’s POINT 62 percent, NOT 62%, .62%!!!).  Talk about quackery! These are the same criminals that control the FDA and shut-down natural health clinics for false advertising! Is this really a whole lot different than Nazi Germany’s propaganda campaign of the 1930’s and 1940’s?
  • A study at Johns Hopkins found that tamoxifen promotes liver cancer.
  • In 1996, a division of the World Health Organization, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, declared tamoxifen a Group I carcinogen.
  • In an abruptly curtailed NCI study, 33 women that took tamoxifen developed endometrial cancer, 17 suffered blood clots in the lungs, 130 developed deep vein thrombosis (blood clots in major blood vessels) and many experienced confusion, depression, and memory loss.

Taxol Spreads Breast Cancer?

Taxol is often called the “gold standard of chemo.” The following report gives you a good idea of the dangers of even the best chemo.

As reported at the 27th Annual San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, Dec 2004, (abstract 6014), using a technique that quantifies circulating tumor cells, German investigators from Friedrich-Schiller University in Jena, have shown that neoadjuvant chemotherapy with paclitaxel (Taxol) causes a massive release of tumor cells into the circulation (measured as ‘circulating tumor cells’ or CTC’s), while at the same time reducing the size of the tumor. The finding could help explain the fact that complete pathologic responses do not correlate well with improvements in survival.  Let me think, should we shrink the original tumor but spew millions of CTC’s all over the body at the same time? You decide.

In one study, according to Katharina Pachmann, M.D., professor of experimental oncology and hematology, breast cancer patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy gave blood samples in which epithelial, antigen-positive cells were isolated. Such cells are detected in most breast cancer patients but are rarely found in normal subjects. The investigators measured the levels of circulating tumor cells (CTC’s) before and during primary chemotherapy with several different cytotoxic agents.

Paclitaxel (Taxol) produces the greatest degree of tumor shrinkage but also the greatest release of circulating tumor cells. In three different paclitaxel-containing regimens, circulating cell numbers massively increased, whereas tumor size decreased. These cells remained in the circulation for at least five months after surgery.

The tumor shrinks, but more cells are found in the circulation. This corresponds with a high pathologic complete response during paclitaxel treatment, but in the end, this is not reflected in improved survival. These cells are alive in the circulation and can easily ‘settle’ somewhere else called metastasis – the deadliest of all cancers.

5-FU (a common chemo drug) and Colon Cancer

The conclusion of a long-term research project by the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) was published in the August 4, 2004 edition of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute. The new study throws doubt on the value the MOF regimen which uses 5-FU, the most common anti-colon cancer agent used by conventional medicine. 5-FU is ‘moderately effective at shrinking existing tumors, but the effect is almost always temporary’.

If these facts are known, then why do doctors turn so quickly to these harsh drugs?

Laetrile Instead?

Laetrile has been used for 100 years to prevent stray cancer cells from starting a new cancer site. Will your doctor tell you about it? Nope. The pharmaceutical company thugs (make no mistake pharmaceutical companies make the oil companies look like angels) are so scared of Laetrile that they bribed the FDA to make it illegal. This is incredible because Laetrile is found in foods that the FDA knows are safe.

Although Laetrile can suppress the spread of cancer and is a good preventative, it is often ineffective on tumors. The reason for this lack of success on tumors may be due to the fact that tumors are beyond the size that Laetrile can deal with. Still it is used by many aware cancer patients to prevent the spread of their cancer. Cancer is spread by small groups of cells moving to another part of the body so Laetrile can be effective against them.

Something as Simple as Vitamin D?

The indication that vitamin D and its derivatives have a protective effect against various types of cancer is not new. In the field of colon cancer, numerous experimental and epidemiological studies show that vitamin D3 (or cholecalciferol) and some of its derivatives inhibit the growth of cancerous cells. Researchers at the Vall d’Hebron Institute of Oncology (VHIO), in collaboration with the Alberto Sols Institute of Biomedical Research (CSIC-UAB), have confirmed the pivotal role of vitamin D, specifically its receptor (VDR), in slowing down the action of a key protein in the carcinogenic transformation process of colon cancer cells. These results are being published in the journal PLoS One.

This protein, known as beta-catenin, which is normally found in intestinal epithelial cells where it facilitates their cohesion, builds up in large quantities in other areas of the cells when the tumor transformation begins. As a result of these changes, the protein is retained in the cell nucleus, where it facilitate the carcinogenic process, and this is the point at which vitamin D intervenes, or rather, the vitamin D receptor (VDR). “Our study has confirmed the pivotal role of the VDR in controlling the anomalous signal that sparks off the growth and uncontrolled proliferation of colon cells which, in the final instance, ends up causing a tumor to emerge”, says Héctor Palmer, the coordinator of this study and head of the VHIO’s Stem Cells and Cancer laboratory. He continues, “The stimulation of this receptor suppresses the action of the beta-catenin protein, intercepting the series of events that change the intestinal cell into a malignant tumor cell”.

The study was conducted on mice and human colon cancer cells. The mice were used as a model to replicate the initial phases of colon cancer. “These findings show that mice of this kind, which also lack the VDR and hence do not respond to vitamin D, present larger and more aggressive tumors than mice with the VDR”, explains Dr. Palmer, and concludes: “The number of tumors is not influenced by the absence of VDR, which would indicate that this factor does not protect against the appearance of the tumor but does intervene in its growth phase, reducing its aggressiveness”.

The researchers then analyzed the effect of the VDR on human colon cancer cell cultures and observed that the concentration of the altered protein, beta-catenin, increased in cells without the VDR. These findings were repeated in the three types of colon cancer cells studied, and confirmed the results observed in the mice.

In two-thirds of advanced colon cancer tumors there was a lack of VDR in the cancer cells, and this circumstance leads us to believe that this loss may contribute to speeding up the growth of the tumor. The findings of this study confirm this supposition.

Vitamin D: essential in the prevention and treatment of colon cancer, and ALL cancer for that matter.

Chronic vitamin D deficiency, seen more readily in colder climates, represents a major risk factor in the development of more aggressive cancers. Patients in the initial stages of colon cancer, the time when the VDR still has a substantial presence in the cells, could benefit from being treated with vitamin D3.

The body not only obtains vitamin D from food, especially raw milk and good oils, but also manufactures it from exposure to sunlight, given the person has adequate cholesterol levels!

Here’s another ‘kicker’:  we need cholesterol for many reasons; one purpose of cholesterol is its conversion to the Vitamin D precursor in the skin.  When sunlight hits your skin, it converts this cholesterol to Vitamin D. Our obsession with low cholesterol levels and addiction to statin drugs has left us deficient in Vitamin D because of an impaired production!  Oh brother!

Our Medicare System Encourages Fraud

From “Cure Your Cancer” by Bill Henderson (another book I highly recommend):

“Our government’s Medicare system encourages the fraud and abuse that is rampant among oncologists. For example, the chemotherapy drug Etoposide is sold wholesale to oncologists for $7.50 for a 100mg dose. The allowable Medicare reimbursement, however, is $129.34 per dose. The consumer (you and I) pay a co-payment of $25.87 – almost three and a half times the doctor’s cost! Medicare pays the rest from our tax dollars.

According to the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), the average oncologist makes $253,000 a year. Of this, 75% is profit on chemotherapy drugs administered in his or her office. All of these drugs, like Tamoxifen and Etoposide, treat the symptoms of cancer, not its causes.

A recent survey of the 64 oncologists working at the McGill Cancer Therapy Center in Montreal, Canada found that 58 of them (91%) said they would not take chemo- therapy or allow their family members to take it for cancer treatment. Why? Too toxic and not effective.”

People are Waking Up

In the Seattle Post-Intelligencer article of September 5, 2002, entitled, “Many cancer patients getting relief from alternative treatments, study shows,” Carol Smith reported that, “Seven out of 10 adult cancer patients in Western Washington are using alternative therapies….” The survey, done in conjunction with Bastyr University in Kenmore and the Oregon Health & Science University in Portland, was based on interviews with 356 patients who had breast, prostate or colon cancer.

From Physician and Author Dr. Cynthia Foster MD:

“Cytotoxic chemotherapy kills cancer cells by way of a certain mechanism called “First Order Kinetics.” This simply means that the drug does not kill a constant number of cells, but a constant proportion of cells. So, for example, a certain drug will kill 1/2 of all the cancer cells, then 1/2 of what is left, and then 1/2 of that, and so on. So, we can see that not every cancer cell necessarily is going to be killed. This is important because chemotherapy is not going to kill every cancer cell in the body. The body has to kill the cancer cells that are left over after the chemotherapy is finished. This fact is well known by oncologists. Now, how can cancer patients possibly fight even a few cancer cells when their immune systems have been disabled and this is yet another stress on the body, and they’re bleeding because they have hardly any platelets left from the toxic effects of the chemotherapy? This is usually why, when chemotherapy is stopped, the cancer grows again and gets out of control. We have now created a vicious cycle, where doctors are trying to kill the cancer cells, and the patient is not able to fight the rest, so the doctors have to give the chemotherapy again, and then the patient can’t fight the rest of the cancer cell, and then the doctors give the chemotherapy again, and so on.”

A patient using ‘Protocel’, one of our alternative cancer therapies wrote, “The radiologist who read my recent breast ultrasound says ‘it’ (my original ‘grape-size’ tumor) is shrinking, seeing only a ‘distal acoustic shadowing’ as opposed to the original ‘organized mass’.  The technician commented to me, “How do they expect us to get images of something we can’t see (anymore)?”


This was an excerpt from Dr Conners’ book, Stop Fighting Cancer and Start Treating the Cause.

Free Download
Buy the Book