The majority of us knows someone, maybe a family member or close friend, who at one time or another, had a bout with cancer or lost a bout with cancer. There have been several members within my own family that have lost their lives to cancer. Cancer is a killer. And the sad truth is that there is nothing in “modern” medicine that can combat this disease with any real success. It is my hope that this article may open your eyes to the workings of the “cancer industry” and how they have not only failed the American people but how they have abused the American people in their quest for profit.
Over the years we have been bombarded with the same pitch from the cancer industry that even your parents and grandparents have heard. Here are some of them:
“There is, for the first time, a scent of victory in the air.”
Readers Digest article on Chemotherapy, 1957
“We are so close to a cure for cancer. We lack only the will and the kind of money… that went into putting a man on the moon.”
American Cancer Society, Full page ad in N.Y. Times
“Cancer Deaths can be cut in half by the year 2000.”
Peter Greenwald, M.D., The National Cancer Institute, 1989
The search for a cure is hardly the altruistic endeavor you’ve been led to believe. In fact, it’s quite the opposite. When you look at the hard numbers, current cancer treatments are appallingly ineffective. A very small minority survive the cancer … or the treatment.
When it comes to taking money from people by making false claims no one does it better than conventional medicine. “A cure is just around the corner” has been the standard public relations pitch designed to instill hope and motivate people to pump money into the industry.
The Medical Community has been working on a cure for well over a hundred years. The war on cancer has been nothing more than a massive infusion of funds which created a bloated and ineffective bureaucracy.
A study of every randomized, controlled clinical trial from 1990 to 2004, which reported a statistically significant increase in 5 years survival due to the use of chemo shows percentages at zero or near zero for all of the major cancers. This study simply confirms every other study since the war on cancer began. The highest scores, testicular and Hodgkin’s, represent only 2% of all cancers. These rates are not impressive.
[Clinical Oncology (2004) 16L 549-560 (absolute numbers)]
The medical profession generally considers any drug with less than 30% effectiveness to be no better than a placebo. What you see from studies conducted over the last 50 years is that for major cancers the effectiveness of conventional treatment is far less than a sugar pill.
When doing the research it becomes evident that there have been absolutely no great strides in the war on cancer. And only with an understanding of the beginnings and structure of modern medicine and its players can the reasons for this become clear.
The American Medical Association
There are 2 approaches to medicine. “Homeopaths” practice a natural, non-toxic therapy designed to boost the body’s own healing powers while “Allopaths” are known for using toxic, unnatural treatments in trying to affect a cure, such as Blood Letting and the use of Mercury.
By 1900, much of the public had had enough of these unnatural treatments. In the early 1900′s Doctors were poor, had a low social standing and, as a profession, a high rate of suicide. Homeopaths were stealing patients away from Allopaths at an alarming rate. Around this time, the AMA was formed as a Doctors Union to counter the growing power of the Homeopaths.
“… we have never fought the Homeopath on matters of principle. We fought him because he came into our community and got the business.”
Dr. J.N. McCormack, AMA 1903
The AMA set out to destroy Homeopaths and other competitors. They began branding them as “quacks” while harassing them and slandering them.
Backed by Big Business, which smelled money in Allopathic treatments, Allopaths were able to change Medical school curriculums, graduation requirements and licensing laws to favor Allopaths and drive out any competition. The Allopaths had emerged the victors, not because they had better medicine, but because they had made alliances with key business interests that saw that fortunes could be made with new emerging Allopathic medical practices.
The development of anesthetics and infection control meant a boon to surgery. And financial interests started investing in hospitals and medical schools.
The advent of synthetic drugs meant fortunes could be made because, unlike natural remedies, synthetic drugs could be patented which brought investors flocking into the pharmaceutical field. Anxious to capitalize on this, the AMA was quick to grant its seal of approval to any drug advertised. As a result, their advertising revenues soared. Coupled with advertising from the tobacco industry, the Journal soon became the most profitable publication in the world.
The rise to power of conventional Allopathic medicine was due to the drug and tobacco money behind their medicine, not the patients they could heal. And it was PROFITS, not proven medical benefits that were behind the adoption and widespread use of surgery, radiation and chemotherapy treatments for cancer.
In order to police their market place, anyone who tried to practice any none form of Allopathic cancer treatment was quickly branded a quack.
During the course of the last century, the AMA, aided by the Federal Drug Administration, and others, closed down hundreds of facilities which were using promising but non-Allopathic cancer treatments. In fact, several treatments had cured thousands of patients. These were well documented with reputable Doctors confirming both the cancers and the cures.
Morris Fishbein was the AMA’s most zealous “quack” buster. His definition of a quack was: “Someone who pretends to medical skills he does not possess.” Given the fact that Fishbein failed anatomy in Medical School, never completed his internship, never practiced a day of medicine or treated a single patient in his entire career, Fishbein himself turns out to be the ultimate quack by his own definition.
In one case, the AMA’s goal was to completely eliminate the chiropractic profession despite the fact that for over 40 years the AMA itself had shown that chiropractic therapy was effective. The AMA was convicted in Federal court along with the American College of Surgeons and the American College of Radiologists.
The author of the book “The One Hundred Year Lie” relates how he suffered a very painful back injury. He was rushed into the hospital, put on a morphine drip, x-rayed and given a prescription for strong narcotic drugs. The visit to the emergency room cost him $700.00.
On the way to the pharmacy he happened to cross a chiropractor’s office and decided to go in. After half an hour of treatment his pain was completely gone and has never returned. The session cost him just $55.00. This is the same profession the AMA was trying to destroy.
“If ever an organization that deserves a Congressional investigation for dishonesty and fraud… it is the American Medical Association.”
Chester A. Wilks, Chiropractor who sued the AMA and won.
The AMA was not alone in suppressing cancer treatments as it had powerful assistance from other players in the cancer industry.
“The National Cancer Institute, with enthusiastic support from the American Cancer Society … has effectively blocked funding for research and clinical trials on promising non-toxic alternative cancer drugs for decades…”
Samuel S. Epstein, M.D.
“Everyone should know that the “war on cancer” is largely a fraud and that the National Cancer Institute and the American Cancer Society are derelict in their duties to the people that support them.”
Linus Paulding, Ph.D., Nobel Prize Winner
The American Cancer Society
“Caught early enough, breast cancer has cure rates approaching 100%.”
The American Cancer Society, March 15, 1987
“They lie like scoundrels.”
Dean Burk, Ph.D., regarding the ACS. Burk was employed by the NCI for 34 years.
The American Cancer Society was formed with the backing of John D. Rockefeller. It has functioned as a mouthpiece for the cancer industry, not the public, ever since. The American Cancer Society’s mission statement says they “are dedicated to eliminating cancer as a major health problem.” The Chronicle of Philanthropy reports that the ACS is “more interested in accumulating wealth than in saving lives.” The ACS in fact, is the wealthiest “non profit” in the world with net assets over 1 billion dollars. Not surprisingly, it has been consistently given the lowest ranking in Charity evaluations.
Despite this wealth, its aggressive fund raising campaign pleads poverty and laments the lack of available money for cancer research. Aside from high salaries and overhead, most of what is left in the ACS budget goes into research that directly benefits pharmaceutical and radiological companies.
That early detection is almost the sole mission of ACS should come as no surprise, since the mammography industry has infiltrated every nook and cranny in the ACS and 5 radiologists served as ACS Presidents.
For an organization supposedly fighting cancer the ACS has adopted some strange positions in the past. Here are a few examples:
Refused to support a ban on DES which caused vaginal cancer.
Opposed regulating hair products known to cause breast cancer.
Opposed a ban on saccharin and advocated its use. (Coca-Cola gave them a large grant and Pepsi sat on an ACS Commission)
Failed to support occupational safety standards concerning carcinogens.
Repeatedly failed to support the Clean Air Act.
Campaigned against laws that ban food additives shown to be carcinogenic in either animals or humans.
Opposed warning that Premarin and similar drugs increase the risk of cancer.
Issued joint statement with Chlorine Institute in support of organochlorine pesticides, despite evidence some were known to cause breast cancer.
Supported the pesticide industry, stating pesticide residues are safe, even for babies.
Petitioned to ease restrictions on silicone implants, although they were shown to induce cancer.
Refused to support legislation to label all toxic chemicals in cosmetics.
Aggressively recruited 16,000 healthy women into a 5 year trial of the drug Tamoxifen, to the benefit of the drug maker. Women were told the drug was harmless.
Why would an organization supposedly fighting cancer support such positions? Because it has conflicts of interests. Members of ACS boards have included representatives from Herbicide manufacturers, Chemical Fertilizer manufacturers, Pesticide manufacturers, as well as other industries that buy off the ACS with money while polluting the environment with cancer causing chemical substances.
The maker of the worlds top selling breast cancer drug, Tamoxifen, has solely funded the “National Awareness Breast Cancer Month” for years. This company is a spin off of the worlds largest producers of pesticides and other industrial chemicals, including those linked to breast cancer.
Judged by its history, the ACS’s mission is to raise money that will ultimately benefit the pharmaceutical and mammography industry as well as opposing regulations that will ban chemical carcinogens.
Cancer is BIG BUSINESS and the ACS’s main role from the time it was formed by the Rockefeller group is to support private industry, not patients.
The Food and Drug Administration
“The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is largely controlled by the orthodox medical profession … and the industries which the FDA was set up to regulate.”
Mike Robinson, M.D., Head of Congressional Committee investigating allegations of a conspiracy to suppress alternative therapies.
“The thing that bugs me is that people think the FDA is protecting them. It isn’t. What the FDA is doing and what the public thinks its doing are as different as night and day.”
Herbert Lay, Former Commissioner of the FDA
“[The FDA is] serving industry rather than the public.”
Dr. David Graham, Senior Drug safety researcher at the FDA who blew the whistle on Vioxx.
“Half of the modern drugs could well be thrown out of the window, except that the birds might eat them.”
M. HI Fischer, M.D.
The FDA is the enforcement arm of the cancer industry. It passes regulations that favor the industry and shuts down any form of unconventional treatments that would threaten industry profits. It has a revolving door with the drug industry, as officials change places on a regular basis. FDA testing protocols are often set by the drug companies themselves and then adopted by the FDA. This is because half of the FDA’s funding comes from the drug companies it is supposed to regulate.
Here is one of the FDA’s regulations that was obviously designed by the drug companies: “Only a drug can cure, prevent or treat a disease.” By this regulation, natural substances cannot cure diseases, only drugs can. Understanding the war that Allopaths have waged against Homeopaths, this regulation can be understood to actually be stating: “only unnatural Allopathic substances can cure diseases.”
And if you claim a natural substance can cure a disease, the FDA can, and will, shut you down.
Although the FDA has approved over 40 highly toxic patented cancer drugs, it has yet to approve a single non toxic cancer therapy. Why? Natural cancer therapies are not profitable because they cannot be patented. In other words, only profitable treatments can cure cancer. In fact, only profitable treatments can cure any disease.
When natural treatments score solid cancer successes and show promise, they are seen as competition and are dismissed as dubious quackery. Phony tests that are rigged to fail are conducted and these non-toxic treatments are then shown to be worthless. When an extremely toxic but potentially profitable drug can only show marginal rates of successes, it will get FDA approval and enter the realm of FDA approved acceptable treatments.
Here is a flow chart of the major players in the cancer industry:
At the top of the chart are businesses that have an interest in making profits from cancer. Players below are there to support and maintain these businesses. The cancer industry buys off politicians through campaign financing. In turn, politicians pass legislation favorable to the cancer industry while exerting influence on the FDA which passes regulations favorable to the cancer industry.
Research funded by public money is handed over to the pharmaceutical companies at no cost. And personnel shuffled between private firms and the government insures the cancer industry is well served.
“[The NCI (National Cancer Institute) has become] what amounts to a governmental pharmaceutical company.”
Samuel Broder, Former NCI Director
Every dollar that flows from the top down is repaid many times over in legislative, regulatory and research benefits for the cancer industry. This is the result of the marriage between Allopathic medicine and business early in the last century, the outcome being the corporate takeover of medicine. One of the consequences of this corporate takeover is that the war on cancer is now focused on treatments that generate billions in corporate revenue while lip service is being given to prevention.
The primary mission of the ACS is to encourage people to get early screening. This gets people into the system sooner and generates more revenue for the cancer industry. Early detection is simply a recruitment tool that generates profits. Each patient is worth, on average, a half of a million dollars to the industry. And the goal is to turn patients into long term profit centers. This is why surgery, radiation and chemotherapy are grossly over used, despite their ineffectiveness.
The cancer industry justifies this by the deceptive use of “rubber numbers.” The ACS, and other players, know the difference between “relative” and “absolute” numbers. They should be ashamed of themselves for deliberately misleading the American public that supports them.
Instead of insuring that the best cancer therapies are available for the American public, the cancer industry has accomplished just the opposite. They have limited the choice of therapy to the worst and most dangerous treatments ever to visit the human body. And they have made any other treatment illegal.
Is This By Design?
One of the problems with the treatment of cancer is that there is so much focus on the tumor. The appearance of a tumor is like the appearance of idiot lights in your car – they appear only after a problem has developed.
So what do we do? We try to shrink the tumor, cut it out or start amputating body parts, to get rid of it.
What’s wrong with this picture? What caused the tumor in the first place? In fact, the tumor is just a symptom that something else has gone terribly wrong inside the body. One might think that men of science would search for the “cause” of the tumor and attack the disease at its root cause. This strategy would seem consistent with good science. But not so in the cancer industry. By ignoring what caused the tumor the fox is left in the henhouse and will strike again.
Mainstream medicine leaves the fox …
“We have a multi-billion dollar industry that is killing people right and left, just for financial gain.”
Glenn Warner, M.D.
“[Chemotherapy is] a marvelous opportunity for rampant deceit. So much money is there to be made…”
George Lundberg, M.D., editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association.
“[It's] a market driven industry that feeds off breast cancer survivors.”
“Everybody but the patient is doing well in the cancer business.”
Is it strange that modern medicine is trying to cure cancer with cancer causing treatment? Although surgery, chemo and radiation are only effective in a very small number of cases – we use these treatments on the vast majority of patients. These are the only main types of cancer treatments in this country. Why?
“The National Cancer Institute and the American Cancer Society have misled and confused the public and Congress by repeated false claims that we are winning the war against cancer.”
Samuel Epstien, M.D.
“The treatment of Cancer and degenerative diseases is a national scandal. The sooner you learn this, the better off you will be.”
Allen Greenburg, M.D.
“For most of today’s common solid cancers, the ones that cause 90% of cancer deaths each year, chemotherapy has never proven to do any good at all.”
Urich Abel, M.D., University of Heidelberg, 1990
“Overall death rates from many common cancers remain stubbornly unchanged – or even higher – then when the war began.”
E. Marshall, M.D., Science 1991
“Evidence has steadily accrued that [cancer therapy] is essentially a failure.”"
N.J. Temple, M.D., Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 1991
“We have given it our best effort for decades, billions of dollars of support, the best scientific talent available. It hasn’t paid off.”
John C. Baiter, M.D., Harvard University, 1997
The Industry War on Competitors
The war on competitors of the cancer industry continues to this very day. We have seen legislation proposed that would ban the sale of natural vitamins and supplements leaving us with only the judgment of licensed physicians over our personal health.
In the case against Dr. Max Gersons nutritional treatment of cancer, Morris Fishbien, the head of the AMA, accused Dr. Gerson of treating cancer patients with diet and warning them against cigarettes.
Dr. Gerson had written extensive papers on his cancer therapies which were published in many European Journals but he was black balled in the U.S. and only ONE of his papers was ever published.
Dr. Gerson got as far as presenting 5 terminal cases that were completely cured of cancer to a Senate sub-committee. The proposal to support his research was narrowly defeated after heavy pressure from the medical lobby, particularly the AMA.
The laboratories used by Dr. Gerson were threatened with economic ruin if they continued to provide services for him. And even attempts against his life were made.
Dr. Gerson cured Albert Schweitzer’s wife of tuberculosis after conventional treatments had failed. He also cured the Nobel Prize Winner of his own Type II Diabetes.
“I see in Dr. Gerson one of the most eminent geniuses in the history of medicine.”
Albert Schweitzer, M.D., Nobel Prize Winner
Max Gerson was good enough for Albert Schweitzer but not good enough for American Allopathic medicine which shot down the Gerson clinic and forced it to flee to Mexico. As a matter of fact, the battle against Dr. Gerson still rages today. At “Quackwatch“, which claims to be “Your Guide to Quackery, Health Fraud and Intelligent Decisions”, there is evidence of this continuing battle.
When writing about Dr. Gersons therapy the term “he believes” was riddled throughout their presentation while denying that there is solid evidence that Dr. Gerson cured many people of various diseases, including terminal cancer patients. While taking stabs at only 3 Doctors in the report I read, I noticed that the case against Harry Hoxsey is missing. Could it be they are afraid that readers may discover some actual truth? Before continuing with Dr. Hoxsey’s tale, ask yourself who might the “Quackwatch” website be owned and operated by and where does their funding come from? Could that site be just another cog in the cancer industry machine?
Let us now move on to the case of Harry Hoxsey. Some officials in the AMA and FDA admitted the Hoxsey treatment, which was concentrated anti-oxidants from plants, could cure some forms of cancer. A federal Judge ruled that Hoxsey’s treatment was “comparable to surgery, radium and x-ray in its effectiveness, without the destructive side effects of those treatments.”
Judge W. L. Thornton ruled:
“I am of the firm opinion and belief that Hoxsey has cured these people of cancer. Hoxsey has been done a great injustice and … articles and utterances by defendant Morris Fishbein [President of the AMA] were false, slanderous and libelous.”
Judge W.L. Thornton, Decision – Hoxsey v. Fishbein.
But Hoxsey represented a threat to the Allopaths. So the AMA first tried to buy him out. When this failed, they brought in the FDA and shut down his facilities, forcing the operation to also flee to Mexico.
Gerson and Hoxsey are just 2 examples that were forced out of business, indeed, out of the country, because their natural treatments threatened the cancer industry. Since then, hundreds of promising cures have met the same fate.
The war against “quackery” was not intended to eliminate incompetent Doctors but to eliminate alternative treatments in order to dominate the market place.
In a federal report to Congress, the AMA, National Cancer Institute, and the FDA, were charged with organizing a conspiracy to suppress a fair unbiased assessment of Harry Hoxsey’s treatment. And, to date, there has never been a fair and unbiased assessment of alternative treatments for cancer. The assessments that have been done have been rigged to guarantee failure.
“There have been many cancer cures, and all have been ruthlessly and systematically suppressed with Gestapo-like thoroughness by the cancer establishment.”
Robert C. Atkins, M.D.
“The inquisition is still with us. It’s called the Food and Drug Administration, the National Cancer Institute, the American Cancer Society and the AMA. They are allied together to destroy innovation in modern times.”
Robert G. Houston
“It is now illegal to find a cure for cancer.”
Pat McGrady, Jr.