from ProvideYourOwn Website
My article 'The Cancer Fraud' has begun to elicit criticism from defenders of conventional medicine.
It is difficult to change paradigms, especially when so much is at stake. My heart goes out to cancer sufferers and their families. However difficult it is to consider new ideas, we must face them if we are to avoid the inevitable suffering that cancer produces.
Conventional medicine is an abysmal failure in treating cancer. It is time to face that fact. A defender of conventional medicine has raised some good points that I would like to address.
Following are his points and my response to each one.
Effectiveness of Conventional Treatments
Your definition of conventional medicine is treatments that have proven effective, while alternative medicine is comprised of treatments that are not proven in their effectiveness.
When they are, they become conventional medicine.
While in an ideal world, this idea would be sound. In an ideal world, men would always tell the truth. Men would not hide, distort or even overlook information for personal gain. In an ideal world, doctors would be able to sift through the latest research without pressures or preconceived ideas. In an ideal world, we all could shift our paradigms the moment the current one appears to be false.
Unfortunately, we do not live in an ideal world.
The world we live in is full of fraud, greed, cherished paradigms, and just plain ignorance. In this world, valid treatments do exist for cancer, and they are either unknown by mainstream practitioners or rejected for various reasons. I cover that in my below article.
Just because a treatment is not practiced by the mainstream does not mean it is ineffective. It is just not accepted. I’ll cover the effectiveness of alternative treatments in the next section.
In this section, I will cover the effectiveness of conventional treatments.
In the chart on the left are listed various 5-yr survival rates for different types of cancers when treated by chemotherapy.
It shows a survival rate of a whopping 2.1 percent. A review of chemo on 5-year survival rates in Australia garnered almost identical results, with a 2.3 percent success rate.
I would hardly call chemotherapy a treatment that works. In my personal experience, I have never known or heard of anyone who has survived the 5-yr mark. These studies bear out my personal experience - only 2 people out of 100 live more than 5 years when treated with chemotherapy.
Conventional medicine has always been fraught with problems, and will always be. For years, doctors mocked the idea of hand washing, and more recently, the doctor who discovered the bacterial source of ulcers was ridiculed until the evidence was too overwhelming to ignore.
That is not to say that alternative medicine doesn’t suffer as well. Both approaches suffer from the same problems. Both are practiced by men. Imperfect men. Effective treatments must be found where they exist.
The imprimatur granted to conventional medicine is no guarantee of success as these 5-yr cancer studies show.
Effectiveness of Alternative Treatments
Many people have been effectively cured of cancer via alternative treatments.
While I am not a practitioner, there are many who are who are successfully treating cancer. Many of these people are actual MDs. Unfortunately they are hard to find. If their practice is especially effective, they are often shut down. This section provides some details on this subject.
Here’s another article describing a doctor whose treatment was effective. These men are just the tip of the iceberg.
As far as clinical studies of actual treatments, how can there ever be any, when anyone who has a promising treatment is shut down? There are numerous studies showing the efficacy of dietary factors on cancer as I’ll discuss next. These are mainstream studies.
Nevertheless, they are ignored. Completely ignored.
To my naysayers, I say:
You can call these alternative cancer practitioners snake oil salesmen if you want, but ask yourself this question: what will it take to convince you? When your local oncologist embraces alternative treatments?
The biggest resistors to change throughout history have been doctors and scientists. They have vested interests in the status quo, and they are not about to embrace changes. That is the sad fact. It is time to face it.
Cancer and Its Relationship to Diet
The assertion that their diet was irrelevant is a bold one, and I insist on the same level of proof of its verity that this reader demands from me.
He asserts these cancers had nothing to do with their diet. I can understand his anger. Let’s just assume for the moment that cancer is indeed caused by our diet.
What then? It means that we are in some measure responsible. Our ignorance, our lack of self-control, our unwillingness to have an open mind contributed to these awful outcomes.
How can we live with ourselves if we faced the truth? To lose a loved one is horrible, just horrible. We can bear it only if we believe that we did the “best we could”. And I am not saying these individuals did otherwise.
But, if they suffered due to ignorance,
I have these questions to this writer about these cancer victims’ diets:
Did they eat sugar, corn syrup or any carbohydrates other than those found in green vegetables and fruits in their whole state? Did they eliminate all sources of vegetable oils from their diet? Did they take large amounts of fish oil daily? Did they take massive amounts of vitamin D3?
Unless they had all of these diet practices, no one can say it had nothing to do with their diet. Not only that, these are merely the biggest and most obvious items.
Let’s look at each one in more detail:
This reader wanted evidence for alternative treatments.
In addition to the numerous practitioners - both M.D.s and non-M.D.s who are successfully treating thousands of patients, there are thousands of studies showing the benefits in both preventing and treating cancers with various diet factors and supplements.
I have cited just a handful. If one really wants more proof, one only has to search the internet for these studies.
Despite the plethora of evidence, the vanguards of cancer research such as the National Cancer Institute continue to say the results are inconclusive. In the instance I linked to, they cite studies that use inadequate levels of vitamin D, and then say the results are inconclusive.
It is not for lack of evidence that effective cancer treatments are not widely adopted. It is rather the unwillingness of so many to accept the evidence.
The sad fact is:
June 9, 2011
Recently I went to the viewing of a friend and neighbor whose life was taken by cancer. Or rather that is what we are told to say and believe.
What I mean is that I question whether cancer is the almost certain mark of death we are lead to believe or rather the result of widespread ignorance, quackery and even, dare I say - fraud.
What is this fraud I am accusing of? And who am I accusing?
In order to answer these questions, let us compare cancer to a similar disease; adult onset diabetes. This disease shares many common factors with cancer. Like cancer, its diagnosis translates to nearly certain death.
The only thing modern medicine can do for the diabetic is to postpone that death:
Compare it to the medical approach to cancer.
The goal is identical - prolong the patient’s life by any expedient means, while the disease continues; its true underlying causes unchecked. Surgery, drugs and such are used on cancer patients which is very similar to the treatment of diabetes.
Which leads us to our next question. Why
is cancer feared and not diabetes?
With diabetes, the patient often lives for many years. With cancer it is usually less than five, most of the time less than ten. Secondly, the treatment of diabetes permit the patient to live a fairly normal life.
With cancer however, the
patient is either being poisoned or irradiated, both of which leads
to nausea, illness, extreme loss of energy, and considerable
suffering. Lastly, when a person finally succumbs to diabetes, it is
a fairly quick death without a lot of suffering. With cancer, the
sufferer and his family must endure a long and painful period before
the disease takes its final toll.
With diabetes it is somewhat successful at mitigating the effects of the disease, while with cancer it is not. In fact, with cancer, it usually makes the patient and his situation worse.
It can delay the inevitable to some extent though. It would appear then that if the medical approach were to become as effective in treating cancer as it is with diabetes, then it would probably be accompanied by no more fear and dread than is diabetes.
One day, I believe the medical approach to cancer my very well reach such a level. However, even if it does, it would still not really cure anyone, but merely postpone the inevitable death and suffering.
It is folly to believe that a cure for cancer will be found and implemented by the medical/pharmaceutical industry.
That is not their goal. It would not be in their financial interest to do so, but a treatment that prolongs life by continual medical intervention would be. Why have they not succeeded yet? It is a difficult goal. It wasn’t that long ago that diabetes was as fatal as cancer.
One day, the formidable
obstacles will be overcome and cancer treatment will become more
effective, but only if profitability is maximized.
The truth is that both of these deadly illnesses have a similar root cause - malnutrition.
If we correct our diet they will simply go away, provided our bodies are not too badly damaged already.
What is this fraud? It is the lies, cover-up, and outright persecution of anyone who tells the truth about cancer being a dietary disease that can be effectively reversed without medical treatment.
The fact that diabetes is a similar disease with dietary causes, but does not invite the same attacks and lies, must also be answered in order to bring understanding to the whole cancer controversy. Why do alternative cancer treatments bring such attack, but the ones for diabetes do not? I believe the answer lies in the fact that diabetes is treated fairly successfully by the medical industry, while cancer is not.
This difference is profound in its implications. With diabetes, people are perfectly content to use the medical industry for treatment of their disease. In fact, most prefer that treatment, even if it means a premature death, to actually stopping the disease by lifestyle changes.
consequence, nutritional approaches pose little competitive threat
to the industry’s profitability, and therefore the proclaimers of the
truth are left in peace.
People are suffering, and then dying. They are desperate for a solution. Most would be perfectly happy with a treatment similar to that for diabetes, but it is not yet available. It is not even on the horizon. Therefore, those diagnosed with cancer are desperate, very desperate.
They know the medical industry can’t cure them, so they will accept anything that promises to do so.
Abel presents his sacrifice to God,
it is accepted, and God is pleased. When Cain does the same. God is
not pleased because his sacrifice was not the kind God wanted.
Rather than bring a sacrifice that pleases God, Cain kills his
If faced with a truth that requires a change,
many prefer to kill the messenger of that truth rather than make the
change. Sadly, this is also the approach of the
After all, if
the charlatan’s magic potion fails, the patient can still make a
beeline back to the doctor for his remedies. So what is the real
threat to medical profitability but a real, genuine, honest to
goodness, effective treatment? Such a treatment is an incredible
threat to an industry reaping billions of dollars a year in profit
from the sales of their potions.
The answer lies in the insidious nature of the disease. Because it is so feared, people will grasp for any possible hope. That includes snake oil. When effective treatments are attacked and driven underground, then it becomes very difficult for a person to distinguish between effective treatments and bogus ones.
If the competing ideas were allowed to freely operate in the daylight, the truth would soon become evident. By driving them underground, competition of ideas is suppressed and distinguishing truth from error is difficult at best.
The result is
drastic reduction of competing ideas to the failed medical
treatments, and therefore a great success to the medical industry’s
The very fact that those offering alternatives are viciously persecuted is bona-fide proof that effective treatments exist. With this fraud exposed, this article has completed its end. Notwithstanding, it is not my intention to leave my reader hanging for want of the knowledge of these wonderful alternative cancer treatments.
Unfortunately, a thorough discussion would fill an entire book.
Suggest you read 'World Without Cancer'.