Are We Really Getting 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 and other studies have shown it produces a risk of other cancers including endometrial. Though the risk is small, it still exists. See: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9469370
- 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.
- In 2014, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists released an opinion letter recommended NOT using Tamoxifen in patients with various stipulations including those with atypical endometrial hyperplasia noting the risk of endometrial cancer. See: https://www.acog.org/Clinical-Guidance-and-Publications/Committee-Opinions/Committee-on-Gynecologic-Practice/Tamoxifen-and-Uterine-Cancer?IsMobileSet=false
The point isn’t that Tamoxifen should never be used nor is it that Tamoxifen is a bad drug. The point is that we don’t always receive the FULL STORY behind these “miracle drugs”.
Again, choose wisely.
Buy Stop Fighting Cancer & Start Treating the Cause to learn more about treating cancer with alternative medicine.
Excerpt taken from Chapter One of Stop Fighting Cancer & Start Treating the Cause.
Dr. Conners graduated with his doctorate from Northwestern Health Sciences University in 1986 and has been studying alternative cancer care for over 20 years. He holds AMA Fellowships in Regenerative & Functional Medicine and Integrative Cancer Therapy.
He is the author of numerous books including, Stop Fighting Cancer and Start Treating the Cause, Cancer Can’t Kill You if You’re Already Dead, Help, My Body is Killing Me, Chronic Lyme, 3 Phases of Lyme, 23 Steps to Freedom, and many more you can download for FREE on our books page.