Re: Chemotheraphy

It is true that chemotherapy rarely works. For the majority of cancer the cure rate is estimated at 2 to 3%. If we factor in things like changes in diet, using alternatives that work in conjunction with the chemo, and the use of chemo in conjunction with surgery that already removed the tumor brings the success rate down to near zero. Another way the success rate is artificially inflated is that a person is considered cured if they make it 5 years cancer free. If the cancer comes back though after the 5 year period though the original therapy can still be considered a success.

It was reported in the Journal of the American Medical Association a while back that drug companies were manipulating their test results in order to get their chemo drugs approved. If people died or did not respond to the drug then the test subjects would be dropped from the final study making the drugs appear effective when they really were not. I saw a great example of this recently in a program on NOVA. They were following the production and testing of a new angiogenesis inhibitor derived from rat urine. They followed two men undergoing the trial for the drug. The first one died, so I am sure he was dropped from the final results. At the end of the program there was a note that the second man was dropped from the study because his "tumor grew beyond the parameters of the study". In other words the drug had no effect so he was dropped so that the final results would appear to be effective. The drug in now on the market even though it doe snot work. It is sold under the name Endostatin.

I have an interesting text book in my library written for doctors on cancer. In fact Cancer is the title. Anyway, the book points out two important facts. One is that chemo averages less than a 3% success rate. There are a few exemptions like vincristine and vinblastine used for cancers like leukemias and lymphomas, which are the easiest cancers to treat anyway. The success rate on these cancers is around 70-80%. What is most interesting is that these drugs, the most successful of chemo drugs, are derived from an herb. Yep, the plant is Madagascar periwinkle. The second thing they point out is that an estimated 90% of patients undergoing chemo will die from the chemo, not the cancer due to malnutrition. This book was written a while ago, and the malnutrition problem is being addressed now with things like total parental nutrition (TPN) IVs.

I still remember my first day working on the oncology floor. The first thing I was told was to not touch the patients without gloves on since the chemo would excrete through their skin and absorb through our skin causing the same side effects as it was in the patients.

An interesting fact about thermography is that it actually dates back to ancient Greek and Roman times. Mud was spread over the tissues and they looked for areas that dried abnormally fast. Cancer cells do not have the ability to dissipate heat as well as normal tissues, so the cancerous area actually becomes hotter than the surrounding the area. This is the same reason that hyperthermia using radiofrequency works. The tumor literally cooks while the surrounding tissue is unharmed. There have been reports on 60 Minutes on a similar process being developed, but this is hardly a new idea. I have seen medical journal articles on this dating back to the 1950s.

Speaking of scans, when I was 15 I was down working in radiology. One day they came in with a new breast scan that produced the most detailed image of the breast I have ever seen. I was told that instead of radiation that there was an electrostatic discharge shot through the breast. This charged a plate that was then dusted with an ultrafine blue powder creating a very detailed image of the breast including the lymphatic and duct systems. Even very small tumors, much smaller than can be detected with current mammograms, could be seen. That was the last time I saw this scan! And that was nearly 30 years ago.

What people don't realize is that detecting cancers early is not profitable for the hospitals. If a tumor can be removed by a lumpectomy then there is hardly any profit compared to a radical mastectomy, radiation, and chemo. Especially for the metastasized cells that lead to the secondary cancers.

I know a lot of people will not believe this. They would rather believe that all these fund raisers for breast cancer, leukemias and lymphomas, etc. are actually being used to look for a cure. I ask them to show me even one major advancement in cancer research they have come up with all the billions of dollars they have taken in EACH YEAR! As another example there is an herbal extract called podophyllumtoxin. This compound was reported in both the Journal of the American Medical Association and the Journal of the American Cancer Society back in the early 50s to be HIGHLY EFFECTIVE against 6 different forms of cancer including breast cancer. So what happened to it? It was ignored for about 40 years. Then the University of North Carolina figured out a way to synthesize the drug and they sold it to a California drug company to market it as a chemotherapy drug. As far as I know the drug still has never made it to the market. My big question is though is how many people died of the cancers the drug was found effective for in the last 50 some odd years?

And recently I was posting on the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society board. I started pointing out the well known viral connection to leukemias and lymphomas. One person told me that I need to tell his doctor about that, sarcastically, because his doctor had never heard of a viral connection. I told him to find a new doctor since we have known about leukemia viruses for over 25 years. He still did not believe me so I went to PubMed and pulled up a bunch of medical abstracts on leukemia and lymphoma viruses and posted them on the message board. Next thing I knew I was banned from posting on the board and all of the posts calling me a quack were left on the board even though this was in violation of their own policies. In my opinion it was very clear that they did not want people to know about the viruses because then they would have to admit to cures since we have antivirals. And that would mean losing all of the money they are conning out of people to supposedly find a cure. I think that the heads of the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society should be arrested and charged with fraud and obtaining money by false pretenses. The same goes for groups like the American Cancer Society who has been reported to be suppressing cancer cures that work by blackballing scientists that come up with promising cancer therapies.

Part of the problem is that it was not patentable as a natural drug. So the information of this cure was suppressed. This is the same reason that the drug companies are trying to get herbs banned. Herbs are not patentable, and so they are not profitable and they cannot be controlled by the drug companies. Nearly all pharmaceutical drug is either made directly from an herb, or is based on an herb's chemistry. Many people must think that the drug companies wave a magic wand and magically covert a worthless herb in to a spectacular new functional drug. Sorry people, it does not work that way.

And ever wonder why the drug companies are always looking in the remotest parts of the world for their new drugs. EACH AND EVERY plant in the world can be used as medicine in one way or another. Even the common rock lichen is an antiseptic. The fact is that all plants produce phytochemicals that help them adapt to their environment and deal with problems like insect attack. All of these phytochemicals have medicinal effects in humans. The reason that the drug companies are looking in the remotest parts of the world, such as the remote jungles and the deepest oceans, is that want chemicals that they can patent and that the average person cannot access. Again, in this manner they can maintain financial control over the drug. If they used common, readily available herbs, like dandelion, then people would just go pick their own medicine rather than pay the over inflated prices the drug companies are asking.

Speaking of which, there has been a lot talk about banning the import of drugs from other countries like Canada and Mexico citing safety concerns. For the most part this is total BS. Most of these drugs were actually manufactured in the US to begin with then exported to these countries. These countries buy the drugs at a fraction of the cost that they are sold retail in the US. So they sell them back to US citizens below US retail, but still above their wholesale costs. So they make a profit still but cut the retail profits of the US drug companies that sold them the drugs in the first place. Another fact not widely known is that President Bush' father sits on the board of Eli Lilly Pharmaceutical Company, and 4 of Bush' cabinet members sit on boards of pharmaceutical companies. Bush has been illegally using his Presidential powers to protect his, and his family and friends, pharmaceutical investments.

How many people here remember interleukin 2? It was studied for over 25 years before it was brought to the market and found to not only be safe but effective. As soon as it hit the market the FDA all of a sudden claimed it caused heart attacks, and that was pretty much the last time we heard much about it. Do you know how many common FDA approved drugs can cause heart attacks? NSAIDs for example like ibuprofen (Advil, Motrin, Nuprin, etc.).

Then there was the HCG vaccines for cancer. Cancerous tumors are actually nearly identical in morphology to a fetus. The fetus is a foreign protein to the mother's immune system. So the fetus is coated with HCG to hide it from the mother's immune system. Cancerous tumors use the same trick to hide from the immune system. The idea of the HCG vaccines was to stimulate an antibody response to the HCG to tag the cancer cells so the immune system could find and attack the cancer cells. HCG injections are the same thing that Kevin Trudeau was pushing for weight loss. What I don't think he mentioned was the fact that this would also target any fetuses for attack if the injections were given leading to spontaneous abortions in pregnant women. Anyway, the idea made a lot of sense, and should have worked, but I have yet again to see it hit the market even though it has been more than long enough to achieve approval status.

The most effective and safest cancer treatment that I have ever found is ozone therapy. Ozone works through a variety of mechanisms including killing cancer microbes. Though its primary effect is through the production of peroxides that not only activate the immune system, but also swells cancer cells with the peroxides causing them to rupture. The best part is that the ozone selectively kills cancer cells since cancer cells lack the enzymes needed to break down the peroxides, and that are found in healthy cells. Ozone also stimulates the production of these antioxidant enzymes making the therapy self protective, and increases immune stimulatory cytokine levels. Ozone oxidizes carcinogens, and helps to detoxify the body. As for safety, a German study followed over 6.5 million doses given in which there were just over 30 adverse reactions. Most of these minor like a little bit of local irritation. No mainstream therapy shows even a fraction of this kind of safety record. Ozone is legal under the law. Under the law, anything that was in use prior to the induction of the FDA (1909) that shows no unreasonable risk to human safety has a grandfathered approval status. The FDA routinely ignores the law though, and will jail people using it for treatment on other people. Just more solid proof that they do not want a cancer cure.

It fact it has been stated that if a cancer cure was ever put on the market that the market would collapse, and every medical school in the US would go under due to losing their research grants. Just think of all the people that make money off of cancer. The doctors and other medical personnel. Researchers and cancer organizations. Bed companies, oxygen suppliers, plastics companies, chemical companies, medical equipment manufacturers, the media, morticians...... The government has another reason for wanting deadly diseases. If people live longer they will collect more social security, which is already going bankrupt.
Tweet