Despite the yearly fanfare regarding new cancer drugs, the percentage of Americans dying from cancer in 2003 was about the same as it was in1970. But, still conventional doctors can’t prescribe alternatives cancer treatments. Six hundred lobbyists paid by pharmaceutical companies are doing their best to make sure that conventional doctors never can prescribe alternative cancer treatments.

After 2003, the number of new cancer cases became artificially reduced which allowed agencies like the American Cancer Society to claim that progress is being made. In 2004 the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reported that VA hospitals in at least 13 states are no longer reporting cancer cases and that reporting has been inconsistent in 14 additional states. Therefore, as many as 70,000 new cancer cases (about 5% of the national total) were not reported. Any improvement in the number of cancer cases is therefore in doubt.

Those Great New Cancer Drugs

In 2003 and 2004, there was a lot of publicity about the “great new cancer drugs.” In March 2004, the Executive Editor of Fortune Magazine wrote an extensive article about these new drugs. The title of the article was all revealing, “Why We’re Losing the War on Cancer.” To order this article**.

Leaf reports that the two new blockbuster drugs, Avastin and Erbitux, aren’t effective. He reports that Avastin, “managed to extend the lives of some 400 patients with terminal colorectal cancer by 4.7 months” considering the possible side effects, that is not really worth the risk when there are safe effective alternative treatments available. And Leaf reported that Erbitux did even worse, “has not been shown to prolong patients’ lives at all” and it costs $2,400 a week. It is typical for the Cancer industry and mainstream media to pump up any of the new therapies. Leaf admits, Fortune magazine ran a cover article on Interleukin-2 with a “Cancer Breakthrough” headline. As any oncologist will tell you, it wasn’t.

The article goes on to report that Europe seems to have the same problems. The twelve new anticancer drugs approved in Europe between 1995 and 2000 did not improve survival or quality of life nor were they safer than the older drugs. However, they were several times more expensive. Here are some extensive statistics** regarding the progress of conventional cancer treatment from the United Kingdom.

In 2005 Herceptin was hyped as “astonishingly effective.wonder drug.” However, the truth is far different. Ralph W. Moss, Ph.D. has written a report on the Herceptin decption. Here is what Michael Janson, MD, past president of both the American College for Advancement in Medicine (ACAM) and the American Preventive Medical Association (APMA) has to say about this special report:

“Dr. Moss has once again cut through the hype of medical research and media reports with a keen, objective analysis that presents the true picture of scientific results regarding the latest ‘miracle’ in cancer therapy. He reveals the hollow core of the recent medical reports on Herceptin, showing that it is not what has been claimed, and that the statistics were manipulated to make it seem far better than it is, while underplaying the potential risks. The conflict of interest among the authors that he notes is a danger to honest researchers and to the public who might mistakenly take this drug (and many others) in inappropriate situations. Let’s hope that his analysis gets wide attention.”

Remember Lung Cancer Drug Iressa?

From a Newsday article of December 18, 2004, “Shocking the medical and financial worlds, a highly touted lung cancer drug, Iressa, failed to help patients live longer in a major clinical trial.” How can these hyped-up drugs get all the way to clinical trials? The promise of tremendous profits is the only explanation.

Why Doctors Prescribe the Newest Drugs

Doctors do not prescribe the newest drugs because they are better for you. Everyone’s body chemistry is different, a treatment that worked for some people may not work for you. Conventional doctors do nothing to determine which of the available treatments for your cancer will work for you. They just prescribe the newest pharmaceutical drug. Pharmaceutical companies love this because the newest drug is usually the most expensive. Doctors do this because:

—      They do not want to appear to be behind the times.

—      The new cancer drugs appear to be better because of the hype that accompanies their release

—      The side effects of new drugs are not well-known in the beginning.

Would you like to know what happened to good medicine?

The Wrong Attack

Cancer cells obtain their energy from fermentation. Normal cells obtain their energy from oxygenation (except muscle cells when they are completely exhausted). This is a tremendous difference. Alternative cancer treatments such as Cancell and Paw Paw target this difference. Conventional cancer research ignores this tremendous difference continues to seek methods to destroy fast growing. Our immune system contains mostly fast-growing cells. The worst thing to do when you are sick is to attack your immune system.

Conventional research seems to do everything wrong. For example, it relies heavily on animal testing. Here is an article that exposes the fallacy of using animals for medical research*.

Table of Contents | Return to the Comparison Table* | World Without Cancer

Conventional vs Alternative Effectiveness

The standard position of conventional Western medicine regarding alternative treatments such as nutrition and planned based medicine is that such treatments are not as effective as drugs. However, in an Independent (UK) article of 08 December 2003 , Allen Rosesl, a vice-president of GlaxoSmithKline(a lagre international pharmaceutical company) was quoted as saying, “most drugs work in 30 to 50 per cent of people” (who take them). This is about the same as the effectiveness range of alternative cancer treatments.

Considering Chemo?

Don’t miss the subsection below “Taxol Spreads Breast Cancer” and especially the pink text.

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).

Safe and effective plant based treatments cannot produce large profits because they cannot be patented. Large profits are needed to pay for the expensive FDA approved clinical trials. So plant based treatments never get FDA approved to treat a disease. Your doctor can only prescribe treatments that are FDA approved. If your doctor prescribes treatments that are not FDA approved, he or she can be sued.

From the 12th December 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 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…” followed by a pitch for more donations.

Another popular belief that is repeated in movies and TV shows is that not taking chemo is dumb or cowardice. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is the smart cancer patient who does enough research to learn the fraud of conventional cancer treatment and only the brave who stand up against the pressures of oncologists.

Share This