A personal experience of chemotherapy

This message was posted by B.O.D. on a different forum.

I thought I would share it here.



A personal experience of chemotherapy

I hadn’t any strong views about chemo at the time. I was aware that some people refused it, but I never bothered to find out why. Until my wife, Tijen, was diagnosed with cancer, I had never known anyone with it. Like most people, I had heard that ‘chemo worked if you caught the cancer early enough’, but I also that some people were cured without it, so I was none the wiser. Tijen didn’t have all the facts and figures about chemo but instinctively she didn’t want anything to do with it. it was, she said, aggressive and toxic and wanted to heal her body in a kinder, gentler and natural way. That sounded good enough for me. in any case, I could not imagine a better candidate for natural healing - if anyone stood a chance, I believed, she did. So I trusted her instinct and supported her choices.

In retrospect, she was right to be suspicious of chemo. I didn’t know then, but chemotherapy had been developed from chemical weapons after World War I. Scientists discovered that the derivatives of the mustard gas were so toxic that they blasted away fast growing cells like hair follicles, stomach lining, bone marrow - and cancer. By the 1950s, a number of chemotherapy agents had been developed, all operating in much the same way - like bombing an entire neighbourhood to kill just one terrorist cell. The dangerous cell will certainly be exterminated, but many innocent ones will also be wiped out and other problems often follow.

Chemotherapy, we are told, is the most effective treatment of cancer. Cancer Research, for example, claims that half of all chemo patients survive their disease for ten years or more (2010-11). There is little or no official information about how reliable these stats are or how they are collated. The quality of life for those survivors during and after the decade, or lack of it, isn’t recorded, nor is the survival rate of chemo patients over the 10 year period, but a 50/50 chance of recovery is better than nothing. End of story? Not quite.

The authenticity of chemo stats is controversial with many doctors claiming that only a minority of cancer patients survive chemo or would be better off without it. In 2006, research by Australian oncologists Professor Graeme Morgan, Professor Robyn Ward and Dr. Michael Barton concluded that long term chemotherapy contributes just two percent to improved survival rates. In 1990, Doctor Ulrich Able, a German epidemiologist claimed that chemotherapy had achieved nothing for 80% of all cancers.”US doctor Allen Levin went one step further and claimed that “the majority of cancer patients in the US die because of chemo but that doctors don’t speak out for fear of losing their livelihoods.”

Other doctors profess to have discovered cancer cures more effective than chemo. In 1981, Dr. Tullio Simoncini, PhD, an Italian oncologist, discovered a way to cure cancer, or orcandida overgrowth (fungas) as he described it, by alkalizing the body with sodium bicarbonate (NaHCO3). He claimed a 90% success rate for patients but, instead of supporting him to develop his discovery, the medical establishment destroyed his career. In 2012, Dr. Antonella Carpenter developed a laser cure for cancer in the US which looked promising, but her reward was to be violently shut down by the Food & Drug Administration (FDA). Cured cancer patient testimonials were refused, her office was raided and her lasers and research funds were confiscated. She was arrested and convicted of fraud after an FDA-backed show trial, despite the sentencing judge, James H. Payne, conceding that ¨her laser treatments were effective as well as ineffective¨ (Tulsa World, 19.10.16.)

But alternative cancer cures are nothing new. Natural medicine has been used to cure cancer since the ancient Indian, Chinese and Greek civilisations and continued for millennia until the scientific revolution of the 17th century when it worked alongside the newly emerged ‘allopathic’ (or modern) medicine. By the early 1890s, however, big business had invested heavily in highly profitable allopathic medicine, i.e. expensive surgery, drugs, hospitals and medical schools and started to squeeze out of the market natural treatments such as homeopathy through the new patent system.

The new allopathic medical schools taught student doctors all about drugs and surgery but hardly anything about traditional treatments such as homeopathy, naturopathy, folk medicine or nutrition. Although the cleaning of wounds outside the body was considered essential, cleaning inside of the body with enemas, colonic irrigation and raw food diets was not considered important, especially after the discovery of Penicillin in 1928.

Throughout the 20th century, allopathic medicine and its powerful big business and government backers grew to dominate the cancer treatment market the century was littered with the broken careers of healers such as Coley, Gerson, Koch, Hoxsey Kelley, Gonzalez, Hamer and Rife. Revolutionary treatments such as Enzyme; 714X; Haelan; Antineoplastins; Live Cell; Ozone; Shark Cartilage, Peroxide; EDTA Chelation; DCA; Hydrazine Sulfate; Black Box; Black Magic; Vitamin D; Laetrile and Krebiozen stood no chance against the combined might of the international pharmaceutical industry (Big Pharma) and the medical establishment.

In short, natural cures for cancer have been locked out of the health market. Big Pharma claims its monopoly is unavoidable because most natural remedies cannot be isolated in a test tube and patented - clinical trials, therefore, cannot be carried out for government health agencies to approve them. Shark cartilage, for example, is widely believed to contain cancer-healing properties. However, because it isn’t possible to own every single shark cartilage, pharmaceutical companies have to find a way to reproduce it artificially. Then it can be patented and any price charged without competition. Since 1939, it has even been a criminal offence to advertise non-patented cancer cures in most countries. This is why mainstream media never run stories about potential natural cures.

So what has the allopathic monopoly of cancer care achieved? A century ago, cancer was extremely rare, but in February 2015 Cancer Research UK shockingly revealed that half of us would suffer cancer in our lifetime. In the same breath though, it claimed - like the Titanic’s captain bragging about improved lifeboats – that “thanks to ‘advanced cancer treatments¨ only half of us would drown. Whatever the controversy about the success or failure of chemo, one thing seemed sure – that no stone has been left unturned to blind us to natural cancer cures and to promote chemo, radiation and surgery as the only effective treatments for cancer.

Over the last century, the manufacturers of chemo have successfully suppressed all alternative cancer treatments and without competition they can literally charge what they like. Big Pharma and its government health agents, like the FDA, are even suspected of murdering healers to deter alternative cancer treatments. From 2015 to 2017 seventy alternative health activists, doctors and journalists were killed in suspicious circumstances such as Annie Fairbanks in 2017. It is, therefore, reasonable to conclude that, at best, chemo manufacturers have a lucrative racket, at worst they have caused countless unnecessary deaths. By hook and by crook, allopathic medicine is now the only credible cancer treatment that most of us know about, in a similar way that some people know little else but totalitarianism. Both claim unparalleled historic success, vilify past and present alternatives as dangerous and destroy the careers of opponents.

With no real choices left Tijen was left to the mercy of the pharmaceutical mafia, it was her only chance, 50% death or 50% life for perhaps 10 years if she was 'lucky'.

My wife has since passed away.

B.O.D.

Tweet