by R. Webster Kehr


from CancerTutor Website

About This Ebook
This eBook is more technical and detailed than the "Introduction to Alternative Cancer Treatments" eBook. For example, it details a randomly chosen issue of the Reader's Digest and shows how the large number of pharmaceutical advertisements correlates with the large number of articles in the magazine which glorify orthodox medicine.

But the real power of this book is in its discussions of the tactics of the pharmaceutical industry, the media and the FDA. Great detail is shown for how these three entities manipulate and control information.

Also, in this book is a chapter on how Linus Pauling, PhD (two-time Nobel Prize winner) and Dr. Ewan Cameron, M.D. (actually M.B. in Scotland) demonstrated that Vitamin C, given in moderate doses, provided far, far better results for cancer patients than orthodox cancer treatments.

The two-time Nobel Prize winner and medical doctor infuriated the medical establishment because they had integrity!! The tactics to discredit the Pauling/Cameron research are studied in detail.

In short, this eBook is for those who want to dig deeper into the tactics of the medical establishment, the media, the pharmaceutical industry and the FDA.



  1. Introduction To The War in Medicine

  2. The Foundation Of The War in Medicine

  3. Case Study of Scientific Corruption [Pauling and Cameron]

  4. Remission, Cure Rates and Other Deceptions

  5. The Approval of Chemotherapy Drugs

  6. The Scientific Evidence For Alternative Medicine

  7. Cancer Research

  8. Case Study of Media Corruption

  9. How The Media and Establishment Control The Public

  10. Other Control Tactics

  11. The Role of the FDA

  12. The FDA Versus Freedom of Speech

  13. Who Do You Believe - Follow The Money Trail









Chapter 1 - Introduction To The War in Medicine

We live in a world of "fast foods," "fast cars," and fast answers or should I say: "shallow answers."


Executives don't like to read reports of more than one or two pages. People want to learn everything they need to know about something by watching a 1/2 hour television show. Students want to learn complicated mathematics while they play video games. And so on.

Unfortunately, the world of cancer politics and cancer treatments are not simple subjects. They are complicated. Plus it is impossible to overcome decades of constant false information by reading for half an hour. So grab something to drink, settle into your seat, and grab your computer mouse, because this is not going to be a short story, nor will it be entertaining.


Let us start with a metaphor.

The Small Town Metaphor
Let us suppose you move to a new town, in fact a small town with only two car repair shops (i.e. "garages"). One of them is owned by Jim. The other by Bob. Jim's garage is by far the biggest garage, he has lots of customers.

The problem is that Jim's mechanics are not very good because they have had very poor training. In fact, most of the time the cars they have "repaired" are in worse shape when they are done, than when the car first came in. Most people put up with Jim and just live with the shoddy work.

However, some people go to Bob's garage, usually after they have gone to Jim's garage first. While Jim's garage charges an average of $1,500 per car repair job, Bob's garage only charges $75 per car repair job. Furthermore, in over 90% of the time, Bob's garage completely fixes the cars of its customers, including the extra damage done by Jim's garage.

You are new to the town, and wonder why anyone would ever take their car to Jim's garage and why everyone doesn't take their car to Bob's garage first.

Then one day as you are reading the newspaper you see part of the problem. Jim is so rich he has several large ads in the newspaper every day. Bob rarely advertises, and when he does he usually gets a visit from the police, and it is not a friendly visit. It seems that all prior policemen in the town now work at Jim's garage, and the current policemen look forward to a cushy job at Jim's garage.

You also note that the newspaper has an article virtually every day about how good Jim's garage is. They interview satisfied customers, interview the mechanics, and make the mechanics sound like geniuses. You also read about how the mechanics at Jim's garage are constantly striving to get better and better equipment. But you note that the better and better equipment they talk about doesn't improve anything, it just increases the cost of their repairs.

You also note that the mayor, members of the chamber of commerce, etc. all strongly endorse Jim's garage. You also note that many of these influential people are highly paid part-time salesmen for Jim's garage.

You also note that Jim contributes significantly to the local schools, and that the children are taught how good Jim's garage is.

Finally you realize there is a war going on between Jim's garage and Bob's garage and that those in power in the town are more interested in which garage offers them the most benefits, than in which garage has the best mechanics. You see that the political machine in town does everything in their power to crush Bob's garage.

But above all, you note that month after month, year after year, Jim's garage prices keep growing and growing, it makes obscene profits, and usually does more damage than good in repairing the cars.


You also note that those small number of people who later go to Bob's garage usually get their car completely fixed for less than $100.

What Is Wrong With This Picture?
What I have just described is the war in modern medicine with regards to cancer treatments.

Orthodox medicine ('Big Pharma') is well organized, unbelievably well funded, and has total control over the news media due to the massive amounts of advertising dollars spent by the pharmaceutical industry. When was the last time you saw a 1/2 hour television show where the main speaker was a doctor who used alternative treatments for cancer? Try to name 10 of the "top 100" best alternative treatments for cancer.

Would it surprise you that the pharmaceutical companies make billions of dollars in profits on chemotherapy drugs every year? Big Pharma also controls many other aspects of life in America due to their many billions of dollars of clout. It turns out that there are a lot of people who will quickly "look the other way" for the right price.

Alternative medicine, on the other hand, is very poorly organized, equally poorly funded, disjointed, and severely persecuted by orthodox medicine.

People in America, unfortunately, generally make their key decisions based solely on what they hear on television. Yet, the fact that orthodox medicine has lots of money, and alternative medicine is disjointed, has nothing to do with which type of medicine has the best treatments for cancer. It only has to do with which side has had the most money for the longest amount of time.


It is like the above metaphor: just because Jim's garage makes far more money than Bob's garage, and does far more advertising, doesn't mean Jim's garage charges a fair price and does a better job.

While orthodox medicine generally uses surgery, chemotherapy and radiation treatments, alternative medicine uses treatment plans with names like:

  • Kelley Metabolic

  • Breuss Tea

  • Budwig Flaxseed

  • Brandt Grape Cure

  • Essiac Tea, etc.

Did you recognize any of the treatments I just mentioned under alternative medicine? You probably didn't.


Yet if you have cancer, and if you make the wrong treatment decision, it could cost you your life! That's right - your own life.


Before you brush-off this war as being unimportant to you, keep that in mind.

You probably think that this war is about medical theory, and that one side believes in the "germ theory" of disease and the other side believes in the "nutritional theory" of disease. Or perhaps you think that orthodox medicine is interested in treating "symptoms," while alternative medicine is interested in treating "causes."


While there are theoretical differences, the war is not caused by differences in medical theory.


The war is all about profits.

"We are not dealing with a scientific problem. We are dealing with a political issue."
Dr Samuel Epstein, M.D.

The fact of the matter is that this war is a political war.


Like all other wars in world history, it is all about money, power and the control of the general public. Most of all it is a war about orthodox medicine maintaining the power they have had since 1910.

Our government agencies and the corporations that control them have done everything in their power to make sure you do not know the truth about alternative medicine, and especially alternative treatments for cancer and alternative prevention measures for heart disease. And the television stations and other media are not about to say anything negative about one of their biggest advertisers - the pharmaceutical industry.


So called "investigative journalists" are never going to investigate the friends of their employer.

"Why does a particular story not receive the coverage it deserves in the media? While a variety of reasons may be at cause, foremost among them... seems to be conflict of interest issues involving the financial concerns of major media advertisers."
Peter Phillips, in his book, Censored 1997

Before saying more about this war, it is instructive to go back to the beginning, to see why this war started in the first place.

Back to Contents

Chapter 2 - The Foundation of The War In Medicine

The Foundation of the War in Medicine
To understand what is going on in medicine we must look to the past.


Consider this article from the North Carolina Museum of History on medicine in the 19th century and before:

"Just as common as taking medicine for a fever, from the Middle Ages through the mid-1800s, bloodletting was performed on patients to cure disease.

Bloodletting is the process of withdrawing blood as a treatment. Most people thought they would die anyway and used bloodletting as a last resort. It began when Greek physician Hippocrates claimed that all diseases occur when there is an imbalance of the four body fluids, otherwise known as humors - black bile, blood, phlegm, and yellow bile.


His discovery led to bloodletting. When the blood was drawn from the vein it was believed that the disease would flow out with the blood.

The procedure of bloodletting is done by applying either a leech or scarificator that will make the initial puncture. Then, a heated cup is placed over the wound that will take the additional blood.


The process is repeated until all the needed blood is taken. It was also common for the doctors to use pointed sticks, knives, or tiny bows and arrows to draw blood. These tools were often difficult to use and could result in too much blood withdrawn from the patient and occasionally caused death.

A famous victim of bloodletting is George Washington. He died from being bled heavily as a treatment for laryngitis.

Toward the end of the time period in which bloodletting was common, leeches began to be used. They were considered less painful and withdrew a reliable amount of blood. The peak use of leeches was in the 1830s.


Due to the theory of Francois Broussais many doctors used leeching for symptoms such as laryngitis, mental illness, and obesity. [European] leeches were preferred over American leeches, which were said to make too small incisions and to draw less blood than the European species.


The use of leeching became so popular that medicinal [American] became an endangered species."

Now suppose that in the 1830s, which was the peak of the use of leeches, the medical community at the time, plus the leech breeders and scarificator makers got together and decided they had a good thing going.


Suppose they said that if they abandoned their techniques for newer techniques that their incomes would drop and many jobs would be lost. Those who grew leeches would make less profits, those who made the scarificators and other instruments would make less profits, the doctors would make less income, and so on.


Suppose they all conspired together to suppress all future medical discoveries (made after 1830) in order to maximize their earnings and profits.

Had that happened, we would still be using bloodletting, leeches and scarificators for virtually all diseases. Scientists today would be spending vast amounts of money studying the DNA of the leeches to breed the most efficient leeches. Scientists would be studying the optimum number of leeches to use, and the optimum places on the body to place them for each type of disease.


Scientists would be studying the optimum amount of blood to draw. The instrument makers would be designing high precision instruments to make incisions and suctions, and so on and so forth.

The massive dollars they would request from the general public on "research" would yield a very small, but ever-growing amount of progress.


A "cure" would always be "just around the corner," but since their interest was in profits and income, not the health, comfort and survival of their patients, the "cure" would never come.


They might also figure out ways to cover up the lack of progress in medicine by using creative statistics.


They might develop very clever ways to define "cure rates" in order to hide the fact that there was very little progress being made.

What Has Happened
Well, this "what-if" scenario for the 1830s is exactly what happened in modern medicine around 1910.


Only instead of stopping progress with bloodletting and leeches, the medical profession decided to stop all medical progress at the stage of surgery, chemotherapy (which actually came along in the 1940s but it was very profitable so they kept it), and radiation treatments.


The original reason for stopping progress was profits.

The pharmaceutical industry, the chemical industry and the petroleum industry (many prescription drugs are made from petroleum products and these three industries had cross-ownership) were afraid that new discoveries might lessen their profits. Using the profits of these industries as bait and influence money, the new mentality spread to Congress, the leadership of the medical industry, and to many other places.

The stagnation of progress in treating cancer continues today because the enormously profitable procedures of surgery, chemotherapy and radiation make many, many billions of dollars every year for,

  • the pharmaceutical industry

  • the chemical industry

  • the petroleum industry

  • medical doctors

  • hospitals

  • medical equipment makers

  • TV stations (through the advertising of the pharmaceutical companies)

  • radio stations (ditto)

  • major magazines (ditto)

  • the ACS (the American Cancer Society is basically a public relations vehicle for orthodox medicine),

...etc. etc.

"Chemotherapy is an incredibly lucrative business for doctors, hospitals, and pharmaceutical companies… The medical establishment wants everyone to follow the same exact protocol.


They don’t want to see the chemotherapy industry go under, and that’s the number one obstacle to any progress in oncology."
Dr Warner, M.D.

In other words, the medical community has gone along with the idea that chemotherapy, radiation and surgery are so profitable that there will never be any significant progress in the "war against cancer."


The leaders have intentionally, willingly, knowingly and pro-actively suppressed every possible advance in cancer treatments for over 80 years, dating back to the 1920s.


(Note: Salvarsan, the first chemotherapy drug, was discovered by Nobel Prize winner Paul Ehrlich in 1909 and was initially used primarily on syphilis.)

The Ralph Moss Story, by Ralph Moss

"In 1974, I began working at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, the world's leading cancer treatment hospital. I was an idealistic and eager young science writer, sincerely proud to be part of Sloan Kettering and Nixon's "War On Cancer."


Ever since I was a kid, my main heroes were scientists (with the Brooklyn Dodgers running a close second!) The job at Sloan-Kettering seemed like a dream come true for me. I wanted to be part of the winning team that finally beat cancer.

Within three years, I had risen to the position of Assistant Director of Public Affairs at the Hospital.


At the time, I was 34 years old, married to my high-school sweetheart, and we had a daughter and son, then 9 and 7 years old. We had dreams of buying a house and saving for the kids' education, so you can imagine how thrilled we were when I was promoted, with a huge raise, glowing feedback from my bosses, and was told that perks of the job would eventually include reduced tuition for the kids at New York University.


Needless to say, we all were really counting on my "bright future" at Memorial Sloan-Kettering. But something soon happened that changed the course of my life forever.

A big part of my job as Assistant Director of Public Affairs was to write press releases for the media about cancer news and to write the in-hospital newsletter. I also handled calls from the press and public about cancer issues.


So I was just doing a normal day's work - or so I thought-when I began interviewing an esteemed scientist at the Hospital for a newsletter article I was working on. It turned out that the scientist, Dr. Kanematsu Sugiura, had repeatedly gotten positive results shrinking tumors in mice studies with a natural substance called amygdalin (You may have heard of it as "laetrile".)


Excitedly (and naively!) I told my "discovery" of Sugiura's work to the Public Affairs Director and other superiors, and laid out my plans for an article about it. Then I got the shock of my life.

They insisted that I stop working on this story immediately and never pick it up again. Why? They said that Dr. Sugiura's work was invalid and totally meaningless. But I had seen the results with my own eyes!


And I knew Dr. Sugiura was a true scientist and an ethical person. Then my bosses gave me the order that I'll never forget: They told me to lie.


Instead of the story I had been planning to write, they ordered me to write an article and press releases for all the major news stations emphatically stating that all amygdalin studies were negative and that the substance was worthless for cancer treatment. I protested and tried to reason with them, but it fell on deaf ears.

I will never forget how I felt on the subway ride home that day. My head was spinning with a mixture of strong feelings- confusion, shock, disappointment, fear for my own livelihood and my family's future, and behind it all, an intense need to know why this cover-up was happening.


After long talks with my wife and parents (who were stunned, as you can imagine) I decided to put off writing any amygdalin press releases as long as I could while I discreetly looked into the whole thing some more on my own time. Everyone at the office seemed happy just to drop the whole thing, and we got busy with other less controversial projects.

So in the next few months, I was able to do my own investigating to answer the big question I couldn't let go of: Who were these people I worked for and why would they want to suppress positive results in cancer research? My files grew thick as I uncovered more and more fascinating - and disturbing - facts. I had never given any thought to the politics of cancer before.


Now I was putting together the pieces as I learned that:

  • The people on Sloan-Kettering's Board of Directors were a "Who's Who" of investors in petrochemical and other polluting industries. In other words, the hospital was being run by people who made their wealth by investing in the worst cancer-causing things on the planet.

  • CEOs of top pharmaceutical companies that produced cancer drugs also dominated the Board. They had an obvious vested interest in promoting chemotherapy and undermining natural therapies.

  • The Chairman and the President of Bristol-Myers Squibb, the world's leading producer of chemotherapy, held high positions on MSKCC's Board.

  • Of the nine members of the Hospital's powerful Institutional Policy Committee, seven had ties to the pharmaceutical industry

  • The Hospital itself invested in the stock of these same drug companies.

  • Directors of the biggest tobacco companies in the U.S., Phillip Morris and RJR Nabisco, held places of honor on the Board.

  • Six Board Directors also served on the Boards of The New York Times, CBS, Warner Communications, Readers Digest, and other media giants.

Not surprisingly, profits from chemotherapy drugs were skyrocketing and the media glowingly promoted every new drug as a "breakthrough" in cancer.


I kept all my notes in my filing cabinet at work. I had no idea what I would ever do with them. I just knew that I had to get to the bottom of it, for myself.

Meanwhile, the public's interest in laetrile refused to go away. A lot of people were going across the border to Mexican clinics to get the stuff and my secretary's phone was ringing off the hook with people wanting to know what Sloan-Kettering thought of its value. I was once again told to give out the news that the studies had all been negative.

At home, I called my family together for a meeting. With their support, I decided I couldn't lie on behalf of the Hospital. In November of 1977, I stood up at a press conference and blew the whistle on Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center's suppression of positive results with amygdalin. It felt like jumping off the highest diving board, but I had no doubt I was doing the right thing. I was fired the next day for "failing to carry out his most basic responsibilities" as the Hospital described it to the New York Times.


In other words, failing to lie to the American people.

When I tried to pick up my things in my office, I found my files had been padlocked and two armed Hospital guards escorted me from the premises.

Luckily for all of us, I have a very smart wife who all along had been making copies of my research notes and had put a complete extra set of files in a safe place. Those notes turned into my first book, The Cancer Industry, which is still in print (in an updated version) and available in bookstores.

That dramatic day, when I stood up in front of the packed press conference and told the truth, was the beginning of a journey I never could have predicted. I was launched on a mission that I'm still on today - helping cancer patients find the truth about the best cancer treatments.

Well, we weren't able to buy a home until years later, the kids went to colleges on scholarships and loans, and my wife took on a demanding full-time job to help us get by.

But in retrospect, my experiences as an insider in "the cancer industry" were among the best things ever to happen to me. My values were put to the test and I had to really examine what was important in my life.


It is because of this difficult experience at Sloan-Kettering that I found a truly meaningful direction for my professional life, rather than just climbing Sloan-Kettering's career ladder and losing my soul in the process."
Ralph Moss, author
Taken From:

The story of Ralph Moss, which is really the story of Dr. Kanematsu Sugiura, is just the tip of the iceberg.


Numerous alternative cancer researchers have been rewarded for their discoveries with jail, being driven out of the country, loss of license, harassment, and many other things.


This war is not for the weak at heart.

Back to Contents

Chapter 3 - Case Study of Scientific Corruption

The Dr. Ewan Cameron, M.D. and Linus Pauling, PhD - Vitamin C Experiment
Linus Pauling is one of the few people in history who has won two Nobel Prizes and is the only person to have won two unshared Nobel Prizes. He lived well into his 90s.


Here is a quote from an interview with him:

"I became interested in vitamin C and cancer in 1971 and began working with Ewan Cameron, M.B., Ch.B., chief surgeon at Vale of Leven Hospital in Scotland. Cameron gave 10 grams of vitamin C a day to patients with untreatable, terminal cancer.


These patients were then compared by Cameron and me to patients with the same kind of cancer at the same terminal stage who were being treated in the same hospital but by other doctors - doctors who didn't give vitamin C, but instead just gave conventional treatments.

Cameron's terminal cancer patients lived far longer compared to the ones who didn't get 10 grams a day of vitamin C. The other patients lived an average of six months after they were pronounced terminal, while Cameron's patients lived an average of about six years.

More recently I've been collaborating with Hoffer, a physician in Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. Hoffer has treated 300 cancer patients and has recommended to all of them essentially the same treatment [as Cameron].


But about a quarter or a third of the patients didn't follow the treatment for one reason or another: The family doctor might have said that those high doses of vitamins would kill them, or the patient might have had a stomach upset and not wanted to continue taking the vitamins.

The terminal cancer patients who didn't follow Hoffer's regimen had a survival time of only about six months. But the ones who followed Hoffer's therapy have done even better than Cameron's patients. On the average they lived about 12 years after being pronounced terminal with untreatable cancer.

Hoffer's regimen includes 12 grams of vitamin C per day, about the same as Cameron's.


But it also includes significant amounts of other nutrients:

  • 800 units of vitamin E

  • 1,000 or 2,000 mg of niacin

  • large amounts of the other B vitamins and vitamin A in the form of beta carotene

Apparently the other vitamins cooperate with the vitamin C to give even greater control over cancer."

(Warning: Do not even think about going on a high dose Vitamin C treatment program unless you are working with someone with extensive experience in the treatment. Very high doses of Vitamin C can kill the kidneys. If you use more than 12 grams of Vitamin C a day you should be working with a health professional.)

Actually, there were multiple experiments done by Cameron and Pauling.


Their treatment protocol was very simple:

  1. Pick cancer patients who were diagnosed as terminal

  2. Who had never had chemotherapy or radiation (there were exceptions)

  3. Give them 10 grams (or more) of liquid Vitamin C every day (instead of chemotherapy)

  4. For the rest of their lives

  5. Then measure how long they live

(Note: Today patients generally use crystal ascorbate Vitamin C - except at clinics. Do not too much potassium ascorbate without doctor supervision.)

It's a pretty simple protocol. A high school student could easily follow their protocol.


The results of their experiments were also very simple, the patients who took Vitamin C lived several times longer than patients who took orthodox treatments with chemotherapy and radiation. Some of their patients (remember all of their patients were considered terminal) went into complete remission, just using Vitamin C.

Their studies were designed to compare a Vitamin C treatment protocol, without chemotherapy and radiation, to a typical orthodox protocol using chemotherapy and radiation.

Note that they did not use a tricky statistic, such as determining what percentage of the patients lived for one year, but rather they measured how long each patient lived.

Their experiments proved beyond reasonable doubt that Vitamin C is a superior treatment for terminal patients versus orthodox therapy. Excuse me for stating the obvious, but if it is a superior treatment for terminal patients, then it is a superior treatment, instead of orthodox treatments, for the vast majority of cancer patients.

Orthodox treatments are extremely painful, destroy a person's immune system, destroy their vital organs, and have a whole slew of other painful and dangerous side-effects.


Vitamin C is an antioxidant that:

  • is completely painless

  • builds the immune system

  • adds quality time and quantity time to the life of terminal cancer patients

It is now thought that when Vitamin C comes into contact with a cancer cell, hydrogen peroxide is created and that it is the hydrogen peroxide which kills the cancer cell. It is beyond the scope of this article to dive any deeper into the theory of using Vitamin C on cancer, but rest assured there is far more to this issue.

So you might wonder, since these studies were done many years ago, why do doctors today use toxic chemotherapy instead of Vitamin C, and the other vitamins of Hoffer?

Big Pharma's Reaction To Cameron and Pauling
Well, it turns out that Big Pharma (the pharmaceutical industry) was not happy with Linus Pauling and Dr. Cameron.


They were embarrassed by a two time Nobel Prize winner. It was time for damage control.


There was a smear campaign to discredit Dr. Pauling that continues to this day. The reason for the campaign, no doubt, was that the patients who took Vitamin C did not take chemotherapy. Thus, Big Pharma did not stand to profit from the extended lives of these patients. In fact, Big Pharma did not stand to profit from these patients at all.

Now you know why Big Pharma has been attacking Vitamin C and Linus Pauling for many years. If cancer patients took 10 or 12 grams of Vitamin C a day, instead of chemotherapy, they would live longer and have far less pain.


I will translate that into something a businessman can understand:

less "earnings per share" for Big Pharma.

(Note: Before you use this protocol, you should be aware that there are far, far better cancer treatments today than the Pauling protocol.)

The truth about what Cameron and Pauling had discovered had to be crushed.


But since the studies were already published, and because Pauling was already world-famous, what was Big Pharma going to do? The answer was to conduct bogus studies which came to different conclusions. But how can a scientific study follow the same treatment protocol and come to a different conclusion? It can't. However, what can be done is to refuse to follow the same protocol and use very fancy statistical tricks.


That is exactly what happened.

But who would do such a bogus study, the treatment protocol was so simple a high school student could have followed it? You track down a doctor known to hate alternative medicine, one Dr. Moertel of the Mayo Clinic.

In response to the success of the Cameron/Pauling studies, the NIH funded a totally bogus "study" at the Mayo Clinic on Vitamin C that did not even remotely follow the same patient selection protocol or the same treatment protocol. Of course since they made no attempt to replicate the Cameron and Pauling study, they did not get the same results.


Was the protocol too complicated for them to follow?

When Cameron and Pauling complained that the study was so overtly and grossly bogus (this ridiculous study was actually published in a major medical journal - the New England Journal of Medicine), a second bogus "study" was commissioned by the same NIH.


You might call this:

"a bogus study replacement technique" for Big Pharma and corrupt scientists.

Needless to say, the Mayo Clinic again refused to follow the simple treatment protocol and again they did not obtain the same results.


There was even a third study, and guess what, again they did not follow the same treatment protocol and did not get the same results (Note: technically this third study was done by a different group, but this group was affiliated with the Mayo Clinic).


Do you see a pattern here?

The fact of the matter is, the doctors at the Mayo Clinic knew the Cameron/Pauling protocol worked and they knew that if they followed their protocols they would have come to the same results. So they never did follow their protocols and obviously never did replicate their results. The most educational thing about their studies was the incredible statistical tricks they used to avoid the truth.

Not only did Hoffer follow the Cameron/Pauling protocols, but a Japanese study also replicated their selection and treatment protocols and also replicated their results!


Four totally independent studies (two by Cameron) used the same treatment protocol and got the same results. Three bogus studies at Mayo Clinic did not use the same treatment protocol and did not get the same results.

The Mayo Clinic studies were done specifically to discredit the work of two-time Nobel Prize winner Linus Pauling. Linus Pauling was getting people to believe there was "scientific evidence" for Vitamin C, and he had to be stopped. It is totally unacceptable (from the viewpoint of Big Pharma) for our corrupt government to allow any scientific evidence for alternative treatments of cancer.


Because there was scientific evidence for Vitamin C, and because they could not shut-up a two-time Nobel Prize winner, there had to be bogus studies designed to divert people's attention from the valid studies.


Once the bogus studies were finished, the media could then take over the suppression of truth and immediately start blacklisting the valid studies.

A Little Logic
Which of these seven studies do all government agencies, quackwatch, the BC Cancer Agency, American Cancer Society, ad nauseum, depend on to justify the use of chemotherapy instead of mega doses of Vitamin C? Duh.


They quote the three Mayo Clinic studies and complain that Pauling and Cameron did not know what they were doing. In other words, the Mayo Clinic refused to follow the simple protocol, and it was Cameron and Pauling's fault! Hmmm.

Did you follow all of that?


Let me summarize it this way:

  • Group A (Cameron and Pauling) found that Vitamin C extended the lives of terminal cancer patients several-fold.


  • Group B (Hoffer and the Japanese), using the same protocol as Group A, confirmed their findings.


  • Group C (the Mayo Clinic), which said they were going to test the validity of the Group A study, did not use the same selection protocol or treatment protocol as Group A, and obviously did not replicate their results. Group A complained that Group C made absolutely no attempt to use the same treatment protocol as Group A.

Thus, Group C did a second study, and again did not follow Group A's protocols, and again did not replicate their results. This happened a third time.


Now you know what is going on in medicine. The treatment protocol is irrelevant to scientists who defend Big Pharma, they are only interested in making sure Vitamin C doesn't look good because Vitamin C is not profitable to Big Pharma.

You might be interested to know exactly what the NIH, quackwatch, etc. complained about in the Cameron/Pauling study. They complained it was not a "double blind" study.

Now let's think about this for a moment. Suppose two groups are selected for a study and the patients are not told which group they are in. The first group is secretly given Vitamin C in an IV, which builds their immune system, provide zero pain, and the patients feel fine. The second group is secretly given chemotherapy in an IV, which destroys their immune-system, destroys their vital organs, makes them feel sick, and causes enormous pain.


Do you think the patients could figure out which group they were in? Do you think you could do a "double blind" study with Vitamin C versus chemotherapy? Don't be ridiculous.

Doing a double-blind study on Vitamin C versus chemotherapy would be like doing a double blind study on battery acid versus chocolate cake. Within a matter of days each group would know what kind of treatment they were on.

But it gets deeper than that. Let me quote from quackwatch, a defender of orthodox medicine and one of the major servants of Big Pharma (and major persecutor of alternative medicine).


See if you can figure out what tricks of logic they are using before you read my comments about their statement:

"The Pauling/Cameron study was not a clinical trial in which patients were compared to carefully matched patients chosen at random and followed using a standardized [selection] protocol. Instead, Pauling and Cameron attempted to reconstruct what happened to the control group by examining their medical records.


Most cancer specialists and journal editors are extremely reluctant to accept [medical records] for evaluating the validity of contemporary cancer therapy, primarily because bias may occur in selecting controls."

First of all, it is a blatant lie that medical records are not acceptable in medical research, they are frequently used.

Second, there was nothing unethical about using a single group. The death rate using chemotherapy and radiation is well known (though they always use statistical tricks to make orthodox treatments look better than they really are) and these patients were going to die in any case, it was only a matter of when and that could be easily calculated.


Furthermore, by not taking chemotherapy, the patients would be in much less pain even if they did not live as long.

There are many cancer patients who would rather have a less painful treatment plan, even if they don't live as long. In fact many cancer patients drop out of chemotherapy because they lose interest in a treatment plan that makes them so sick and causes them so much pain and misery.

But to go a little deeper, imagine that two cars collide in an intersection, a red car and a green car. The red car ran a "red light" several seconds after the light had turned red and was speeding as it entered the intersection. The green car, which did not enter the intersection until after the light turned green, had one tire that was low in air pressure. Imagine the judge saying that the green car was at fault because the air pressure in one of its tires was low.


Imagine the judge ignoring the fact that the red car ran a red light and was speeding! Using Barrett's logic, the green car was at fault.

What Barrett's (the M.D. owner of quackwatch) site was saying was that there was no placebo control group. In other words, when they picked the control group, they used medical records rather than a placebo control group.


The key question is this:

"if Cameron and Pauling had used a placebo group, instead of medical records, would the psychological effect of taking a placebo have resulted in the placebo control group living several times longer than they did?"

Barrett must that thought the answer to that question was "yes."


As already mentioned, such a study would be impossible when comparing Vitamin C to chemotherapy, which is what Cameron and Pauling were comparing.

But there is another problem. If a placebo group were required, what two groups would you use? It could not be Vitamin C versus chemotherapy, because one group must be given nothing (i.e. a placebo). But if you compare the placebo group to the Vitamin C group (which actually would have been acceptable if that is what you were studying), you still have to ultimately compare the Vitamin C group to the chemotherapy group by using medical records.


Thus, you cannot get around using medical records if you want to compare Vitamin C to chemotherapy.

A "double-blind" study is supposed to avoid any psychological effect. What psychological effect should a study be concerned about using a group of dead people? Should the statistics of dead people have been avoided due to the psychological effect on people who died several years earlier?

Is it possible that in four different studies, done in three different countries (Scotland, Canada and Japan), that a psychological factor caused a several-fold increase in survival time? If so, why didn't both groups in the Mayo Clinic studies survive several times longer than expected, because both groups thought they were getting Vitamin C?


Even if the psychological theory was true, I would still give people Vitamin C, if their psychological state of mind caused them to live several times longer!

If fact, Barrett's argument is total nonsense. The purpose of the study was to compare Vitamin C to chemotherapy, and that is impossible to do using a double blind study. The real reason the two groups of studies yielded different results was the treatment protocol.

Here is the important thing, quackwatch didn't even mention that there were any differences in the treatment protocols between Pauling and Moertel (i.e. they didn't mention that the red car had run a red light or that it was speeding). Their focus was on the selection protocol (i.e. the air pressure in the tires of the two cars).

Do you see how quackwatch twisted the facts and used sensationalism to divert your attention from the most important issues. It is as if Dr. Cameron did not know how to determine which hospital the patients were at, what kind of cancer they had, which stage of cancer the patients were at, and which doctors treated which patients.


Let me re-quote from above:

"These patients were then compared by Cameron and me to patients with the same kind of cancer at the same terminal stage who were being treated in the same hospital but by other doctors - doctors who didn't give vitamin C, but instead just gave conventional treatments."

To quackwatch, this wasn't good enough because it didn't come to the correct answer - use prescription drugs.


The vastly different treatment protocol used by the Mayo Clinic is more "scientific" because it leads you to take prescription drugs. Get used to this type of propaganda, you will see it all the time. They love to divert your attention with irrelevant issues.

A normal, open-minded researcher, if they studied the Pauling/Cameron studies and the three Mayo Clinic studies, would quickly look at the selection protocol and see nothing significant to complain about the Pauling study.


They would then focus their attention on the treatment protocol. Since the two groups of studies had vastly different results, it would be absolutely obvious to the legitimate researchers that something significant was different about their studies. By far the thing that was most significant was the treatment protocols.

Barrett also has a page on Linus Pauling himself. The title to the quackwatch page on Linus Pauling is titled: "The Dark Side of Linus Pauling's Legacy."


Ohhhh, it sounds like Linus Pauling joined the "Dark Side" before he died.


The article starts:

"Linus Pauling, Ph.D., was the only person ever to win two unshared Nobel prizes. He received these awards for chemistry in 1954 and for peace in 1962. His recent death has stimulated many tributes to his scientific accomplishments. His impact on the health marketplace [sic], however, was anything but laudable."

Yes, I agree Pauling's impact on Big Pharma was not laudable. He was a pain in their neck. He had integrity and was looking to help cancer patients, not Big Pharma profits.

You should realize that Vitamin C, by itself, is not a cure for cancer, but if it can extend the life of terminal cancer patients by 5 1/2 years or even 1 year (depending on how advanced they were when treatment began), that gives them plenty of time to use the natural treatments that do cure cancer.

Later, I will talk about the "top 100" most effective alternative treatments for cancer. Where does Vitamin C therapy fit in this list? It is not on the list. Not even close. It's cure rate is far too low. It is used in alternative medicine largely to extend the life of the patient so far more effective treatments have more time to work.

However, Vitamin C is used in some medical clinics with excellent success. But for those treating themselves at home, Vitamin C is too dangerous at very high levels.

Two excellent books on the subject of Vitamin C and cancer are:


The Bogus Mayo Clinic Studies on Laetrile
Largely the same people at the Mayo clinic also did two bogus studies on laetrile therapy to discredit the tens of thousands of testimonials of people cured by laetrile therapy (Vitamin B17).


The public was beginning to believe that laetrile actually worked. Time for damage control. Guess what, the Mayo Clinic did not follow standard American protocol and dosages.

For example, if they had followed the standard laetrile diet, which is virtually the same thing as a "raw food" diet, the diet alone would have significantly extended the lives of the patients.

But in this case it was the watered-down and phony "laetrile" the NIH provided to the Mayo Clinic that was perhaps the most bogus part of these studies.


The NIH, which funded the bogus studies, did not allow an alternative treatment vendor to supply the laetrile for at least one of the studies, even though the vendor offered to supply the laetrile for free.

Back to Contents


Chapter 4 - Remission, Cure Rates and Other Deceptions

This is the longest chapter in this book, and it is the most important. Do not rush through it.

First, I am going to ask three questions.


Write down your answers to these questions on a piece of paper before reading any further:

  1. When you hear that someone has "gone into remission," what goes through your mind?

  2. Because chemotherapy causes so much pain and suffering, what statistic would justify its use?

  3. What does "cure rate" mean?"

Write your answers on a piece of paper, then read this chapter, then see how accurate your answers were.

A newly diagnosed cancer patient has several options to deal with their cancer:


Treatment Options For Newly Diagnosed Cancer Patient

  1. Have surgery, chemotherapy and radiation (i.e. orthodox treatments), as prescribed by their doctor (this may include orthodox treatments other than surgery, chemotherapy and radiation).

  2. Have surgery, chemotherapy and radiation, but drop out of the treatment program prematurely.

  3. Refuse all treatments (i.e. have zero surgery, zero chemotherapy, zero radiation, zero alternative treatments, etc.)

  4. Have alternative treatments after extensive orthodox treatments and after doctors have given up all hope for the treatment of this patient.

  5. Have alternative treatments after some orthodox treatments, but the patient dropped out of the orthodox treatment program prematurely.

  6. Have alternative treatments instead of orthodox treatments (i.e. they refused orthodox treatments).

Note that in the last three items, which deal with alternative treatments, there are over 400 different alternative cancer treatments, thus there are really over 400 options available to a newly diagnosed cancer patient.

The key question to be dealt with is this: how do we determine which treatment plan is "best?"


I think a normal person would judge the effectiveness of a treatment plan (or lack of effectiveness) on the basis of three criteria:

Treatment Decision Criteria

  1. First, "length of life since diagnosis" (quantity of life, meaning how long do they live between diagnosis and death)

  2. Second, "quality of life since diagnosis" (lack of pain and sickness)

  3. Third, "strength of the immune system during and after treatments" (this is a measure of the body's ability to fight future cancer events)

For example, suppose Treatment A and Treatment B have identical "length of life since diagnosis" figures, but Treatment A patients have extreme suffering during treatment and patients of Treatment B have very little pain and suffering.


I suspect that everyone would judge Treatment B as being the better or preferred of the two treatment plans.

These three treatment decision criteria can lead to some subjective evaluations. For example, suppose the patients on Treatment Plan C have a "length of life since diagnosis" of 12 months, and the patients on Treatment Plan D have a "length of life since diagnosis" of 11 months, but have far, far less pain, suffering and sickness during treatment. Which treatment plan is best? The answer is subjective, but I think most people would favor Treatment Plan D.


In short, we can intuitively define a treatment plan as "best" if it is the most desirable treatment plan, given the data of the three treatment decision criteria statistics. In other words, the plan picked by the most number of people who have accurate treatment decision information about the treatment options would be judged the "best" plan.

For example, suppose a person had a list of all possible treatment options (even the 400 alternative treatments) and for each treatment option they had accurate data for all three treatment decision criteria (e.g. quantity, quality and immune system) for their type of newly diagnosed cancer at the stage in which they are in at the time of diagnosis.


The person could look at the chart and within a few minutes pick their treatment protocol. It would be easy to decide which option to choose.

But therein lies the problem, what is the accurate data for the above treatment options for the three treatment decision criteria, for a specific type of cancer diagnosed at a specific stage? None of this data is available. You might be interested to know "why" this data is not available.


That is what this chapter is about.

The Theory of Orthodox Medicine
Orthodox medicine is generally based on a three-pronged attack.


To understand this attack, let us consider a person who has newly diagnosed colon cancer, which has metastasized to other parts of their body.

The medical doctors would first consider the density of cancer cells in various parts of the person's body. Most likely, the density of the cancer cells in the colon area would be higher than in any other part of the body.

The first rule of orthodox medicine is to cut out the parts of the body that have the densest level of cancer cells. This is called surgery. Thus, surgeons would cut out the sections of the body that have a dense level of cancer cells even when the cancer has spread far, far beyond their ability to cut it all out.

The second rule of orthodox medicine is to use chemotherapy to treat the less dense areas of cancer cells (i.e. the areas which were not cut out).

The third rule of orthodox medicine is to use radiation (i.e. radiotherapy) to complete the treatment plan. This might be to kill even more cancer cells and put the patient into remission.

Before going any further, I should talk about alternative treatments for cancer. First, alternative treatments for cancer rarely, and I mean rarely, ever depend on surgery.

For example, there were only three situations where Dr. Binzel, an M.D. laetrile doctor (which is one type of alternative treatment), advised surgery for his laetrile patients:

  1. "If the tumor, because of its size or position, is interfering with some vital function, you have to deal with the tumor by whatever means are best available.

  2. If the tumor, because of its size or position, is causing pain, you have to deal with the tumor by whatever means are available.

  3. If the presence of the tumor presents a psychological problem for the patient, have it removed."
    Dr. Binzel, Alive and Well, chapter 14

Doctor Binzel also said:

"If the tumor is remote, not causing any problems, and the patient agrees, I leave the tumor alone."

It is important to understand the reasons for his statements.


A tumor is a symptom of cancer, and generally does not threaten the life of a patient. It is the spreading of the cancer that causes life-threatening situations. Neither surgery, chemotherapy nor radiation stop the spreading of cancer. Only the immunesystem, a special alkaline diet, etc. can stop the spreading of cancer.

It is interesting to note that none of Dr. Binzel's three reasons for surgery had anything to do with treating the cancer. All of the reasons were physical or mental, and had nothing to do with killing cancer cells.

Obviously, however, if a person has a small benign skin cancer, there is nothing wrong with cutting it off. This, in spite of the fact there is a superb alternative treatment for skin cancer called Cansema Black Salve and there are other skin cancer treatments.

Because alternative treatments rarely use surgery, this means alternative treatments work on the dense areas of cancer cells equally well as the less dense areas of cancer cells. This is because alternative treatments selectively kill cancer cells (directly or indirectly), and thus work equally well whether the cancer cells are in dense or less dense areas.

Getting back to orthodox medicine, you might ask yourself this question:

"if chemotherapy is as good as people say it is, then why is surgery necessary?"

In other words:

"if chemotherapy is so good why isn't chemotherapy, instead of surgery, used on the very dense sections of cancer cells?"

To compare the two treatment types, if someone said chemotherapy was better than alternative treatments, then it would be logical that orthodox medicine would not demand surgery and alternative treatments would demand surgery.


But just the opposite is true, chemotherapy demands surgery and alternative medicine has no interest or need for surgery in most cases. Something is wrong with this picture.


But I am getting ahead of myself.


We need to talk about definitions.

Remission, Response, Markers, etc.
I just mentioned that none of the above data is available.


Then what exactly do doctors measure? They measure things like "response," meaning is there improvement in some criteria, such as a reduction in the size of a tumor. They measure such things as "remission," meaning the absence of symptoms. They measure such things as "tumor markers," which are a variety of measurement techniques to evaluate the cancer. And so on.

Before going any further, it is necessary to introduce a metaphor.

Suppose there are 10 automobile manufacturers: Companies B1, B2, B3, B4 and B5 (the "B companies"), and also Companies G1, G2, G3, G4 and G5 (the "G" companies). Suppose the B companies make cars that start to break down after 50,000 miles, just after the warranty runs out (the "B" stands for Bad).


Suppose that after 100,000 miles virtually all of the cars manufactured by the B companies have needed a new engine, a new transmission, and a new air conditioner, just to name three things their cars routinely need. In fact, these companies buy cheap parts and charge outrageous prices for their poorly built cars.


They also use 80 year old metal technology to insure their customers have to buy new cars every 3 or 4 years.

Suppose also that the G companies make cars that last an average of 300,000 miles without any major repairs (the "G" stands for "Good"). They buy quality parts for their cars, build them extremely well, use the newest metal technologies, etc. in building their cars.

Suppose also the B companies are the much older, much larger and much richer companies.


By virtue of their age and size, their advertising money is many times greater than the advertising money of the G companies. Since the media are always loyal to their advertisers, the media always does what the B companies want them to do and always say what the B companies want them to say. It's not that the B companies "tell" them what to say, that is not necessary.


What happens is that if the media says something that makes the B companies angry, the B companies will withdraw their advertising money and give that money to a competing media company that follows the rules. Everyone knows the rules.

Suppose we define the "life" of a car to be the number of miles the original engine lasts. For the B companies the average "life" of their cars would be less than 100,000 miles. For the G companies the average "life" of their cars would be greater than 300,000 miles.

Suppose we refuse to allow air conditioners to be replaced when they break and define the "quality of life" of a car to be the number of miles the original air conditioner lasts. Again, for the B companies the average "quality of life" of their cars would be much less than the "quality of life" for the cars of the G companies.

Suppose we define the "strength of movement" of a car to be the number of miles the original transmission lasts. Again, for the B companies the average "strength of movement" of their cars would be much less than the "strength of movement" for the cars of the G companies.

If we built a chart comparing the cars of the B companies to the cars of the G companies, with these three statistics accurately reflected, no one in their right mind would buy a car built by a B company.

But remember that the B companies have the most money and the most clout with the media. So what can they do to get customers?


They can do a lot of things that distract potential customers from the important statistics. But the most important thing they will do is suppress these statistics. Their goal is to divert people's attention from the statistics (which are suppressed) and get them to think of other things.

For example, in their advertisements they can talk about the "style" of their cars, the "popularity" of their cars or how "powerful" their engines are.

  • They can advertise their cars using pretty women who look lonely, giving the impression that someone who buys one of their cars will be seduced by every pretty woman in town.

  • They can talk about the options available on the car.

  • They can do a lot of things to avoid talking about the three important statistics I just defined.

  • They can sell a lot of cars by distracting their potential customers from the data (i.e. from the truth).

It could be called "selling by deception."

That is essentially what the medical community has done with orthodox medicine nomenclature. The most popular phrase heard in orthodox medicine is "remission."


Orthodox treatments "put people in remission."


That sounds really good. It sounds like everyone should get cancer so they can go into remission. However, as I will show, the word "remission" can be equated to the pretty woman in the advertisement.


It is a nice sounding word, and it attracts millions of customers, but it distracts these "customers" from the statistics that are important.

What Does "Remission" Really Mean?
First of all, the National Cancer Institute defines "remission" as:

"A decrease in or disappearance of signs and symptoms of cancer. In partial remission, some, but not all, signs and symptoms of cancer have disappeared.


In complete remission, all signs and symptoms of cancer have disappeared, although cancer still may be in the body."

What exactly does this definition mean relative to the three "treatment decision criteria" mentioned above.


You, the citizen, are supposed to assume that "remission" means a person is cured of their cancer. But that is not what the definition states. It states there is an absence of "signs and symptoms."


So is there a correlation between the absence of "signs and symptoms" and the three treatment decision criteria above? Generally, the determination of remission is based on a reduction in the size of the tumor or in the change of some tumor marker.


These things may indicate the number of cancer cells in the body, but they are very, very crude estimates of the number of cancer cells in the body. These numbers also do not measure the pain and suffering of the patient (i.e. the quality of life) or the status of the immune system, which is very, very important especially if all of the cancer cells have not been killed.

Make no mistake about it, chemotherapy and radiation shrink the size of tumors. They also kill cancer cells, lots of them. But in the process of doing these things there are potentially dozens of side effects, such as: death, destruction of a major organ, intense pain, extreme sickness, etc. and the death of many, many normal cells.


Chemotherapy does not discriminate between normal cells and cancerous cells, and since there are more normal cells than cancer cells, chemotherapy kills far more normal cells than cancerous cells.

So it is logical to think that the concept of "remission" tells us quantitatively what the "length of life since diagnosis" is?


Let us break down the "length of life since diagnosis" into its pieces using the concept of remission:

  • What percentage of people die before they go into "remission?"

  • What is the average "length of life since diagnosis" for those who die before they go into remission?

  • What percentage of people live long enough to go into remission and die of cancer or cancer treatments (directly or indirectly) while they are in remission?

  • What is the average "length of live since diagnosis" for those who survive long enough to go into remission and die while they are in remission?

  • What percentage of people go into remission and later get cancer again (either the same type of cancer or some other type of cancer) and thus come out of remission and become cancer patients again?

  • What is the average "length of life since diagnosis" for those who come out of remission and get cancer again?

  • What percentage of people who go into remission are actually "cured," meaning they never get cancer again and do not die of anything related to their cancer or their cancer treatments?

  • What is the average "length of life since diagnosis" for those who are actually "cured" of their cancer?

If we had all of these statistics, we could calculate the "length of life since diagnosis" for cancer patients using orthodox treatments.


In fact, I would love to see all of the above statistics for orthodox medicine patients. But of course these statistics are not available.


There is simply a lot of hoopla that people "go into remission."

  • Is it possible that the whole concept of "remission" is designed to hide simple statistics that would tell us how effective or ineffective chemotherapy and other orthodox treatments are?

  • In other words, it is so very simple to calculate the "length of life since diagnosis" (i.e. "survival time") for orthodox medicine patients, why isn't it just calculated?

  • Why is something so simple made into something so complicated?

It would be an easy thing to calculate the "length of life since diagnosis" for people who refuse treatment.


Doctors say it would be unethical to ask people to not take orthodox treatments, but there are plenty of people who refuse treatment, so why not calculate how long they live since diagnosis? Then this number could be compared to a very simple "length of life since diagnosis" for cancer patients who go through orthodox treatments (of course the patients in each group would have to be grouped by sex, age at diagnosis, type of cancer and stage of cancer at diagnosis).

If we had the "length of life since diagnosis" for patients who took orthodox treatments, and compared this number to a similar group of patients who had refused treatments, we could quickly tell whether orthodox treatments were any good.


But none of this data is kept, it must be dug out.

"My studies have proved conclusively that untreated cancer victims live up to four times longer than treated individuals. If one has cancer and opts to do nothing at all, he will live longer and feel better than if he undergoes radiation, chemotherapy or surgery, other than when used in immediate life-threatening situations."
Prof Jones. (1956 Transactions of the N.Y. Academy of Medical Sciences, vol 6. There is a fifty page article by Hardin Jones of National Cancer Institute of Bethesda, Maryland. He surveyed global cancer of all types and compared the untreated and the treated, to conclude that the untreated outlives the treated, both in terms of quality and in terms of quantity.")
see also:

If the real data would lead to the conclusion that people who go on orthodox treatments live significantly longer than people who refuse treatments, or refuse treatments and take an alternative treatment, you can rest assured the orthodox medical community would blast these statistics from the housetops.


But they don't keep those statistics, which leads a logical person to conclude they have something to hide.

"A German epidemiologist from the Heidelberg/Mannheim Tumor Clinic, Dr Ulrich Abel, has done a comprehensive review and analysis of every major study and clinical trial of chemotherapy ever done. His conclusions should be read by anyone who is about to embark on the Chemo Express.


To make sure he had reviewed everything ever published on chemotherapy, Abel sent letters to over 350 medical centers around the world, asking them to send him anything they had published on the subject. Abel researched thousands of articles: it is unlikely that anyone in the world knows more about chemotherapy than he.

"The analysis took him several years, but the results are astounding: Abel found that the overall worldwide success rate of chemotherapy was 'appalling' because there was simply no scientific evidence available anywhere that chemotherapy can 'extend in any appreciable way the lives of patients suffering from the most common organic cancers'.


Abel emphasizes that chemotherapy rarely can improve the quality of life.


He describes chemotherapy as 'a scientific wasteland' and states that at least 80 per cent of chemotherapy administered throughout the world is worthless and is akin to the 'emperor's new clothes' - neither doctor nor patient is willing to give up on chemotherapy, even though there is no scientific evidence that it works! (Lancet, 10 August 1991) No mainstream media even mentioned this comprehensive study: it was totally buried."
Tim O'Shea, The Doctor Within

How Chemotherapy Can Be "Justified"
First of all, chemotherapy cannot be "neutral."


If it does not increase the life of the patients significantly (compared to those who refuse treatment), then orthodox treatments are not only worthless, they do an enormous amount of damage. Orthodox treatments destroy the immune system, destroy vital organs, cause immense pain and sickness, can damage DNA, etc.

Let me say this another way. Everyone has cancer cells. The body's immune system routinely kills cancer cells and stops the spreading of cancer. Thus, cancer patients obviously have a weakened immune system to begin with. Chemotherapy further weakens the immune system, making the body even less resistant to cancer. Thus, even though chemotherapy kills cancer cells, it also weakens the immune system, kills normal cells, etc.


Thus, chemotherapy does both good and bad. But does it do more good or more bad?

Now listen to this carefully: the only way to justify using chemotherapy and radiation is if these techniques significantly extend the life of the patient compared to no treatment at all and compared to those who go the alternative route. Because of the damage that orthodox treatments do, there is no other way to justify the use of orthodox medicine. But it appears that it does not extend life except in rare cases.


So why does the medical community use surgery, chemotherapy and radiation?

“Most cancer patients in this country die of chemotherapy. Chemotherapy does not eliminate breast, colon, or lung cancers. This fact has been documented for over a decade, yet doctors still use chemotherapy for these tumors.”
Allen Levin, MD UCSF The Healing of Cancer (Marcus Books, 1990)

One of the problems with the concept of "remission" is that the medical community conveniently forgets to tell you how many patients "relapse," meaning come out of remission.


Read this quote carefully:

"Ovarian cancer is usually detected at an advanced stage and, as such, is one of the deadliest and most difficult cancers to treat. Therapy can eradicate the tumors, but most patients relapse within two years... Normally, when a woman is diagnosed with ovarian cancer, she undergoes surgery to have the tumors removed.


The ovaries, fallopian tubes, uterus and parts of the bowel are often removed as well. Chemotherapy follows the surgery, and about 90 percent of patients then go into remission, a period of "watchful waiting."


"The problem is that over the next five to 10 years, as many as 90 percent of women will relapse and die," says Berek. When the cancer returns in other surrounding tissue, it is more virulent and resistant to chemotherapy."
taken from:

In other words, virtually all ovarian cancer patients go into remission, but 90% of them also come out of remission, in what is called "relapse," and die within 5 to 10 years.


Then why even bother to talk about "remission" if 90% of the patients also relapse? To make chemotherapy sound good, that's why. "Relapse" is commonly called "regression."

More importantly, remission "justifies" the medical community to use more and more chemotherapy, and stronger and stronger doses of chemotherapy. But if 90% relapse, what proof is there that "remission" has a significant effect on life expectancy? If dosages get stronger and stronger, then there is more and more damage to the immune system, which makes a person even more vulnerable to cancer, either the original kind or another kind.


Many women who have ovarian cancer had breast cancer (and thus chemotherapy) earlier in their lives.

"Two years ago, Hazel was diagnosed with breast cancer. She described her chemotherapy as the worst experience of her life.

'This highly toxic fluid was being injected into my veins. The nurse administering it was wearing protective gloves because it would burn her skin if just a tiny drip came into contact with it. I couldn't help asking myself, 'If such precautions are needed to be taken on the outside, then what is it doing to me on the inside?'"

What Most People Die Of
Most people who "die of cancer" really die as a result of the treatment of the cancer by orthodox methods before they would have died of the cancer itself. In other words:

the treatment kills them before the cancer kills them.

Most cancer patients die of malnutrition (cancer cells steal nutrients from normal cells thus cancer patients need a stronger than normal immune system) or opportunistic infections caused by a weakened immune system.

"The powerful drugs used in cancer chemotherapy effectively kill reproducing cells, including both the malignant tumor cells and also, as a side effect, many cells continually reproducing such as hair follicle cells and those lining the gut, leading to severe nausea & vomiting.


These side effects can be very severe and many patients find these difficult or impossible to tolerate, falling into a wasting syndrome through malnutrition brought on by a combination of reduced appetite and poor gastrointestinal efficiency, which can itself shorten life expectancy."

Chemotherapy also destroys the immune system in several different ways (including the damage done to the gastrointestinal tract causing less immune building nutrients to be absorbed, among other ways), making people much more susceptible to infections.

Because chemotherapy is so toxic, a person might ask:

"can chemotherapy kill the all of the cancer cells before it kills the patient?"

The answer is 'no'.

But let us get back to our main question:

"does the concept of 'remission' equate to the concept of 'length of life since diagnosis?'"

Most people assume there is a direct correlation, however, the damage done by chemotherapy and radiation, and the severe shortening of life due to the complications of these two treatments, cause severe doubt as to the equivalence of 'remission' and 'length of life since diagnosis.'

My point is to say that the measurement statistics of orthodox medicine (i.e. response, remission and markers) have no bearing on life expectancy because they do not compare the benefits of chemotherapy (killing of cancer cells and reduction of tumor size) versus the damage done by chemotherapy (e.g. destruction of immune system, destruction of vital organs, etc.).


Nor does the reduction in tumor size have anything to do with life expectancy (I will talk more about this later).

"It makes no sense at all to use chemotherapy and other treatments that damage cells and tear down and weaken the immune system, when the problem in the first place is that the immune system is too weak already. Even if the tumors go into remission, these treatments have damaged other cells which are more likely to turn cancerous."

The last part of that statement requires more explanation:

"Chemotherapy has other drawbacks. There is an increased incidence of second, apparently unrelated malignancies in patients who have been "cured" by means of anticancer drugs.


This is probably because the drugs themselves are carcinogenic. When radiation and chemotherapy were given together, the incidence of these second tumors was approximately twenty-five times the expected rate.

Since both radiation and chemotherapy suppress the immune system, it is possible that new tumors are allowed to grow because the patient has been rendered unable to resist them.


In either case, a person who is cured of cancer by these drastic means may find herself struggling with a new, drug-induced tumor a few years later."
Ralph Moss, The Cancer Industry - New Updated Edition - Page 78

So let us summarize this discussion:

With regards to "length of life since diagnosis," the concepts of "remission" and "reduction" are ineffective at evaluating the quantitative "length of life since diagnosis" because they fail to calculate an accurate number of cancer cells still in the body (at the time the cancer is determined to be in "remission"), and they fail to take into account the severely weakened immune system that can no longer routinely deal with cancer cells (a normal immune system routinely kills cancer cells, but not a weakened immune system).


Thus, there is a significant probability the same cancer will return or another cancer will arise.

In other words:

there is no proven correlation between being in "remission" and increasing the "length of life since diagnosis!"

Perhaps more importantly, there is no evidence that chemotherapy and radiation significantly increase the life of patients (compared to those who refuse treatment or go with alternative treatments), which would be necessary to justify their use.

"In 1975, the respected British medical journal Lancet reported on a study which compared the effect on cancer patients of,

  1. a single chemotherapy

  2. multiple chemotherapy

  3. no treatment at all

No treatment 'proved a significantly better policy for patients' survival and for quality of remaining life.'"
Barry Lynes, The Healing of Cancer - The Cures - the Cover-ups and the Solution Now! - page 9

With regards to "quality of life since diagnosis," there is no question that chemotherapy and radiation fail miserably in this area.


Chemotherapy and radiation both decrease a person's quality of life to such a degree that many cancer patients in treatment quit their treatment program. They would rather be dead than have to go through such misery.

With regards to "strength of the immune system during and after treatments," chemotherapy and radiation treatments fail miserably in this criteria also. In fact it is the destruction of the immune system that causes many patients to die during treatment.

In short, the concepts of "remission" and "reduction" fail to relate to meaningful statistics with regards to "length of life since diagnosis." Chemotherapy and radiation fail the other two criteria in spite of a patient going into remission.

We thus conclude with extreme vigor that the concept of "remission" and "reduction" are not valuable measures by which to judge the effectiveness of orthodox treatments for cancer.


In a future chapter I will use verified statistics to compare orthodox medicine with alternative medicine.

Cure Rates
Let us talk about what are called "cure rates" or "survival rates."


Orthodox medicine generally says that if a person lives for five years after diagnosis, they are "cured" of cancer, even if they die in the sixth year. In other words, if there is more than 5 years between diagnosis and death, they were "cured" of cancer. This is how they determine their "survival rates."

A person might wonder why the medical community would use such a concept, knowing that the concept of "length of life since diagnosis" is so simple, so intuitive and so logical. And so useful.

Let us return to our automobile metaphor.

How can the B companies hide the fact that they intentionally make really crappy cars? They can use statistics.


Suppose they decide to do a study to find out how many of their cars have their engine replaced within the first 30,000 miles. The number will be quite low, almost as low as the same statistic calculated for G company cars.


This statistic will make it appear that the B companies make cars as good as the G companies. They didn't lie, they used statistics. G company cars are far superior to the B company cars, but you would never know that by looking at that one statistic. That is the whole purpose of using such a statistic!

The G company car makers, on the other hand, would want to see the percentage of cars made by the B companies that still have their original engine after 150,000 miles. That would be a very low percentage for the B companies, and a very high percentage for the G companies. This statistic would make it very clear which company made, by far, the best cars. But the B companies control the airwaves and the media would never allow its "journalists" to report that statistic.

This is exactly how the cancer industry hides the very poor results of surgery, chemotherapy and radiation. Their definition of "cure rate" is based on the percentage of cancer patients who live 5 years, between diagnoses and death, not 10 years and not 15 years.


How does the 5 year number tell us what percentage of cancer patients eventually die of cancer? It doesn't.


The orthodox medical community has done exactly what the B companies above have done, lied with statistics.

"Keep in mind that the 5 year mark is still used as the official guideline for "cure" by mainstream oncologists. Statistically, the 5 year cure makes chemotherapy look good for certain kinds of cancer, but when you follow cancer patients beyond 5 years, the reality often shifts in a dramatic way."
John Diamond, M.D.

Getting the Cure Rate Up
Using this definition, what kinds of things would cause "cure rates" to go up?


Instead of lengthening the time a person lives after diagnoses, how about diagnosing the cancer earlier? By diagnosing cancer earlier, there is a longer period of time between diagnosis and death, thus increasing the percentage of people who live more than 5 years between diagnosis and death.

Before a person is diagnosed with cancer, it is quite common for the person to have had cancer for 5 or 10 years before it is diagnosed. Thus, if cancer is diagnosed at an earlier and earlier state, there will be a higher and higher percentage of people who live for 5 years between diagnoses and death. By simply diagnosing the disease earlier, "cure rates" go up, even if chemotherapy doesn't improve life expectancy at all!

This is undoubtedly the reason the American Cancer Society (an orthodox medicine controlled "charity") has been pushing women to get mammograms every year, in spite of the fact that mammograms can cause cancer because they are X-Rays. Thus, the American Cancer Society has had a positive affect on "cure rates" without having done anything about life expectancy.

Another trick orthodox medicine uses is to ignore counting people who die because of the damage done by chemotherapy and radiation.


For example, someone who dies of pneumonia, as a result of their immune system being destroyed by chemotherapy, is generally not counted as a "cancer" death. Likewise, someone whose liver is destroyed by chemotherapy, and dies of liver "disease," is also not counted as a "cancer" death.

Some cancers are extremely slow growing. Thus, "cure rates" for these types of cancer look very good, but not because the people are cured, but because the cancer is slow growing.

Since many people who are on chemotherapy die of malnutrition and opportunistic infections, many doctors tell their cancer patients to take nutritional supplements. This can lead to the person living longer (because they do not die as quickly from malnutrition or opportunistic infections), but it makes chemotherapy look better!


In other words, "cure rates" go up because of the nutritional supplements, but the effects of chemotherapy may have been unchanged!

Some patients secretly take alternative treatments to treat their cancer without telling their doctors (during or after orthodox treatments). This makes orthodox medicine survival rates look good, but not because of chemotherapy or radiation.

Another trick is to change the standards for what kind of people are part of the statistics.


In other words, if they start including people with less severe cancers (which obviously have a higher "cure rate"), they can get their "cure rate" numbers up.

"The five year cancer survival statistics of the American Cancer Society are very misleading. They now count things that are not cancer, and, because we are able to diagnose at an earlier stage of the disease, patients falsely appear to live longer. Our whole cancer research in the past 20 years has been a failure. More people over 30 are dying from cancer than ever before…


More women with mild or benign diseases are being included in statistics and reported as being "cured". When government officials point to survival figures and say they are winning the war against cancer they are using those survival rates improperly."
Dr J. Bailer, New England Journal of Medicine

(Dr Bailer’s answer to questions put by Neal Barnard MD of the Physicians Committee For Responsible Medicine and published in PCRM Update, Sept/Oct 1990)

By using these tricks they can make it appear that cancer research is progressing slowly, when in fact cancer research has made very little overall improvements in life expectancy or quality of life in the past 100 years.

A Valid Definition of Cure Rate
So how should "cure rates" be defined?


Here is my definition:

Definition of Cure Rate:

"a person is cured of their cancer by treatment if they do not die of cancer, and if they do not die of something caused directly or indirectly by their cancer, and if they do not die from the side-effects of the treatment, and if they do not die indirectly from the side-effects of their treatment. All treatment statistics using life expectancy require that the treatment be compared to no treatment at all under the same detection criteria."

Using such a statistic would expose just how useless chemotherapy and radiation are.


But you will never see this definition used with chemotherapy and radiation because orthodox medicine likes to hide behind bogus statistics, just like the B companies above.

It would be very logical for cancer researchers to use a valid definition of "cure rate," like the one I just mentioned, and do a double-blind study between patients who took the complete orthodox treatment plan and a second group who refused all treatments (Note: This would technically not be a double-blind study, but it would yield valuable data.)


The results of such a study would never be widely publicized, because orthodox medicine would look very bad.

Cancer Surgery
In the history of medicine, cancer surgery will go down as one of the most damaging treatments ever perpetuated on an innocent general public.


While it is true that if a person's cancer has not metastasized, surgery can kill all of the cancer cells, there are several problems with mindlessly using cancer surgery.

First, by the time cancer is diagnosed, unless it is benign, it has probably already spread outside of its original area and thus cancer surgery does not kill all of the spreading cancer cells.

Let me give a simple metaphor. Suppose you have thousands of flies on your 10 acre farm. Suppose that most of them are around the horse corral where there is lots of horse manure. Suppose one day you take all of the horse manure (which contains many maggots) and put it in plastic bags (i.e. surgery) and ship it to a landfill. Will this cure your fly problem? Not at all.


Since all of the flies have not been killed, it will not take long for the remaining flies to breed and replace all of the flies and maggots killed by the plastic bags.

Second, if the cancer has not spread, the patient has so long to live in most cases, that the cancer can easily be treated by any number of noninvasive alternative methods. Virtually all of the top 100 alternative treatments are extremely effective if the patient has over a year to live. Thus, even if the cancer is contained, surgery can be a poor choice.

Third, surgery severs numerous blood arteries, thus blocking them forever. This means the circulatory system is forever damaged with numerous blocked arteries and other arteries have had their blood supply cut off.

Fourth, in a similar manner, surgery does the same thing to the lymph system. The lymph system is a critical part of the immune system, as is the circulatory system, and arbitrarily blocking numerous lymph vessels permanently is not a good thing for the immune system.

Considering all of the permanent damage done by surgery, it is extremely rare when surgery is a cancer patient's best option.

... Now go back to your three answers at the beginning of this chapter. How did you do?

Back to Contents

Chapter 5 - The Approval of Chemotherapy Drugs

The Approval of Chemotherapy Drugs
You might think that a study proving increased life expectancy (versus no treatment at all) would be required for a chemotherapy drug to be approved by the FDA.


Such proof is not required.

We now have to add another player to our story, and it is a government agency. Suppose there is a government agency that decides which car companies can manufacture automobiles. Suppose that the B companies, because of their vast size and money, combined with the natural corruption in government, totally controls this government agency.


The high ranking agency employees are routinely "placed" into lucrative jobs by the B companies when they quit the government. And suppose there are many other perks for the government workers by the B companies.

Suppose also that the majority of the members of Congress in this metaphor were either stupid, corrupt or incompetent and they let the government agency do whatever it wanted.

"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself."
Mark Twain: Manuscript note, c. 1882

With this in mind, I will tell you how drugs get approved.


They study how the chemotherapy drug "shrinks tumors" or reduces some benchmark which is supposed to be an indication that the cancer is being defeated. Neither of these things have anything to do with life expectancy. They may or may not indicate whether cancer cells are being killed, but they don't predict life expectancy.


They are meaningless numbers. It is like the B companies claiming they are making safer and safer automobiles because the paint on their cars resists sunlight better and better. Fading paint has nothing to do with how long an engine lasts.

This is what the FDA says, on its own web site, about the approval of a chemotherapy drug: Iressa:

"Accelerated approval is a program the FDA developed to make new drug products available for life threatening diseases when they appeared to provide a benefit over available therapy (which could mean there was no existing effective treatment).


Under this program, Iressa is approved on the basis of early clinical study evidence (such as tumor shrinkage) suggesting that the drug is reasonably likely to have a valuable effect on survival or symptoms. The approval is granted on the condition that the manufacturer must continue testing to demonstrate that the drug indeed provides therapeutic benefit [i.e. tumor shrinkage] to the patient.


If it does not, the FDA can withdraw the product from the market more easily than usual.

How many clinical trials were performed with Iressa and what did they show? The study on which the FDA based it approval included 216 patients, 139 of whom had failed treatment with two other chemotherapy treatments. In this trial, approximately 10% of patients responded to Iressa with a decrease in tumor size.

The sponsor also presented to the FDA the results of two large (about 1000 patients each) clinical studies with Iressa as initial therapy for lung cancer. In these studies all patients received the standard combination chemotherapy and were randomly given, in addition, either Iressa or a placebo.


In these studies there was no effect of Iressa on survival [versus the placebo], time to further growth of cancer, or on tumor size."

FDA at:

In other words, in two large studies this drug demonstrated absolutely no increase in survival of cancer patients.


It was approved because in other trials 10% of the patients had a decrease in tumor size.

Increased Survival Time
But let's suppose that this particular drug had "increased the survival time" of the patients in a study.


Finally, you say, proof that chemotherapy works, I can get back to my chemotherapy. Not so fast. What does it mean to say that a chemotherapy drug "increased the survival time?"

It means that it increased the survival time of patients relative to some other chemotherapy drug or some other combination of chemotherapy drugs!! In other words, to my knowledge, never in the history of medicine has a drug company proven that their drug extends the life of a patient relative to the avoidance of all chemotherapy drugs!


"Survival time" is only measured by comparing one or more chemotherapy drugs to one or more other combinations of chemotherapy drugs.

In other words, this government agency effectively would allows the B companies approval of their cars as long as they can prove their car model is better than a car model from another B company! In other words, the B companies don't have to compare their cars to one of the G company models, only to B company models. If a Company B2 model has a better rear view mirror than a Company B4 model rear view mirror, then it can get approved by the government agency.

Likewise, chemotherapy drugs only have to be compared to other chemotherapy drugs. They do not have to be compared to "no treatment" or "treatment refused" patients, only to other chemotherapy drugs. Nor do they have to be compared to alternative treatments for cancer, such as the Kelley Metabolic therapy.

Study this next quote carefully!

"We have a multi-billion dollar industry that is killing people, right and left, just for financial gain. Their idea of research is to see whether two doses of this poison is better than three doses of that poison."
Dr Glen Warner, M.D. oncologist

In other words, all "scientific evidence" for chemotherapy drugs is to compare them to each other or to see if a tumor shrinks or to see if some benchmark changes.


Never is chemotherapy compared to alternative treatments nor is it ever compared to no treatment at all. This type of deception is designed to give the public the impression that chemotherapy drugs are constantly improving and soon chemotherapy drugs will actually cure cancer. Nonsense, the chemotherapy drugs are only being compared to each other.


What is getting better over the years is their techniques of deception.

"If you can shrink the tumor 50% or more for 28 days you have got the FDA's definition of an active drug.


That is called a response rate, so you have a response... (but) when you look to see if there is any life prolongation from taking this treatment what you find is all kinds of hocus pocus and song and dance about the disease free survival, and this and that.


In the end there is no proof that chemotherapy in the vast majority of cases actually extends life, and this is the GREAT LIE about chemotherapy, that somehow there is a correlation between shrinking a tumor and extending the life of the patient."
Ralph Moss

Using the car example, when will the B company cars equal the G company cars in quality?


The answer is never because the B company cars are only compared to other B company cars. Since the 1940s there has been virtually zero meaningful progress in chemotherapy drugs. The next 100 years will see about the same improvement as the last 60 years.

Dr. Philip Binzel, an M.D. who used laetrile therapy (one of the commonly used alternative treatments), was asked to take part in a study comparing orthodox medicine to natural medicine. He was exited to participate in the study, here was his chance to prove alternative medicine was far superior to orthodox medicine.


I quote from his book:

"During this period of time, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) stated that it wanted to run a study to show the difference between patients treated with orthodox therapy (surgery, radiation, chemotherapy) and those treated with nutritional therapy.


I was asked to participate in this study. I went to New York to meet with one of the doctors who was conducting the study. I will call him Dr. Enseeye (not his real name, of course). There was a group of perhaps six or seven of us who had dinner that night with Dr. Enseeye. Betty [Dr. Binzel's wife] and I were seated next to him.

Dr. Enseeye explained the study to me. The NCI would take a group of cancer patients and treat them in the orthodox method. Those of us who were using nutritional therapy would take a similar group of patients and treat them by our method. The NCI would then compare the results.


This is the conversation that followed:

"What will the NCI use as a criteria for success or failure in these treatments?" I asked.

"Tumor size," Dr. Enseeye replied.

I said,

"Let me make sure I understand what you are saying. Suppose you have a patient with a given tumor. Let's suppose that this patient is treated by one of these two methods. Let's say that the tumor is greatly reduced in size in the next three months, but the patient dies. How will the NCI classify that?

"The NCI will classify that as a success."

"Why?" I asked.

"Because the tumor got smaller," he replied.

I then asked,

"Suppose you have a similar patient with a similar tumor who was treated with a different method. Suppose that after two years this patient is alive and well, but the tumor is no smaller. How will the NCI classify this?"

"They will classify that as a failure."

"Why?" I asked.

"Because the tumor did not get any smaller," he said. Dr. Enseeye went on to say, "In this study the NCI will not be interested in whether the patient lives or dies. They will be interested only in whether the tumor gets bigger or smaller."

I chose not to participate in this study!"

Philip Binzel - Alive and Well - Chapter 7

This example also demonstrates by far the most important statistical lie of orthodox medicine.


They lie to the public by suppressing the valid "cure rates" of alternative treatments of cancer. Using the above definition of "cure rate" would show the vast superiority of alternative medicine over orthodox medicine.

The best possible way for the B companies to look good is to totally suppress any statistics that compare the B companies to the G companies, especially for long-term numbers (such as how long did the engine last).

In an earlier chapter I mentioned that Vitamin C is a superior treatment to chemotherapy. Orthodox medicine now recommends that Vitamin C should not be given to a patient while they are taking chemotherapy. I agree.


Should you drop the Vitamin C or the chemotherapy? I would drop the chemotherapy and keep the Vitamin C.


Of course read my entire tutorial on alternative treatments before doing anything (there are warnings, among other things).


Let me summarize this discussion:

  • The B companies (i.e. orthodox medicine) want to only use the statistic of what percentage of their cars have their original engine after 30,000 miles (i.e. what percentage of patients live for 5 years between diagnoses and death). This avoids letting the public know their cars are pieces of junk.

  • They suppress any useful statistics that involve cars made by the G companies (i.e. orthodox medicine suppresses valid cure rates for alternative medicine). This avoids letting the public know that the G companies build much superior cars.

  • The government agency that regulates the automobile industry, like all government agencies, sells their services to the highest bidder, namely the B companies. Thus the B companies are legally protected by Congress (i.e. chemotherapy drugs are legally protected by the FDA and Congress). I have simplified this part of the discussion.

  • They also get the government to approve their car safety performance because the paint resists sunlight better and better every year (i.e. they use tumor size shrinkage to judge chemotherapy drugs). This gives the public the impression that their cars are getting better and better, and that the government supports their claims that they are superior.

  • They only compare their car models to other car models made by other B companies (i.e. orthodox medicine refuses to compare the Big 3 side-by-side with alternative medicine, or no treatments at all, using valid measurements of life expectance and quality of life). This gives the public the impression that the B companies will soon be making cars just as good as the G companies. But of course they never mention the G companies.

Back to Contents


Chapter 6 - The Scientific Evidence For Alternative Medicine

Is There Scientific Evidence For Alternative Treatments For Cancer?
The documented evidence that alternative treatments have put tens of thousands of people into remission (i.e. cured them) cannot be denied.


The most viable of this evidence comes from the doctors and others who treated these people. In many cases, such as Kelley, the medical establishment had unrestricted access to their records. If their records had not been in good shape, at the time they were examined, you can rest assured the medical establishment would have blasted this information from the housetops.

The Mexican clinics actually claim to have had far more patients than any of the American doctors, for the simple reason that the American alternative treatment doctors were hounded by the medical authorities, and some of them fled to Mexico, but in most cases the technology went to Mexico.


Actually some of the best technology was developed by Mexican doctors.

It is not uncommon for alternative health doctors to have documented cure rates of 75% to 85% and higher. Dr. Binzel had 288 patients who qualified for statistical analysis. This number represents 30 types of primary cancer and 23 types of cancer that had metastasized. His overall cure rate was 80.9%. Only a handful of his patients died of unknown causes.


This cure rate is fairly typical for alternative health practitioners. Some doctors had higher cure rates and some less, depending on a number of factors.

I quote from a web site regarding a Dr. Kelley:

"The Medical Establishment has for many years endeavored to discredit Dr. Kelley’s most successful Cancer Paradigm developed in 1963.


A medical journalist obtained authorization under the guidance and direction of Dr. Robert A Good, Ph.D., M.D. president of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City to review Dr. Kelley’s records. The objective of the Medical Establishment was to prove beyond a shadow of doubt, that Dr. Kelley was an unorthodox quack.


Dr. Kelley’s objective was to prove beyond a shadow of doubt that the Kelley Paradigm is the only scientific basis for the Cure of Cancer. Dr. Kelley had some 33,000 well-documented medical records of his cancer patients. The documentation was so overwhelming this Study continued for over 5 years... The study was approached from two general parameters. [The] first parameter was for all types of Cancer.


The results indicated a 93% cure rate, after their physicians dismissed the patients, stating no further orthodox medical therapy could be helpful for them. In other words, their disease processes had exceeded the therapeutic limits of Orthodox Medicine and they could no longer be helped. Thus the standard Orthodox Death Sentence - go home and die...


In the Second parameter of the study, there was a 100% cure rate for Pancreatic Cancer Patients who carefully, faithfully and completely followed Dr. Kelley’s Metabolic Protocol.


The Orthodox Medical Cure Rate for Pancreatic Cancer is [virtually] 0%."

Dr. Binzel used laetrile therapy and Dr. Kelley used metabolic therapy.


These types of therapies are somewhat similar, except for the coffee enema which is used only in metabolic therapy.

Spontaneous Remission
So how does the medical establishment deal with the undeniable fact that tens of thousands of people, just in America and Mexico, have been cured of cancer, and tens of thousands more in Europe (especially Germany) and other places have been so cured?

They do this by saying that these patients went into "spontaneous remission." The word "spontaneous" is quite interesting. What do they mean? They mean that it was a pure coincidence. In other words, they might as well have called it "coincidental remission" or "accidental remission" or "unexplainable remission."

From the viewpoint of a statistician (and I spent 3 years as a statistician), what this implies is that whether you have been on alternative treatments or not, there is an equal probability that you will go into "spontaneous remission."

I will try to explain this in a non-statistical manner.

Suppose we take the "set" (i.e. the group) of all cancer patients who have taken surgery, chemotherapy and radiation treatments, and their doctors have exhausted all hope and sent them home to die. Since millions of orthodox cancer patients have died of cancer, we know the size of this set is in the millions.

Now let us break this master set (i.e. "population" is the correct term) down into three subsets:

  • Set A) Those who never went on any significant alternative treatment plan.

  • Set B) Those who went on an aggressive alternative treatment plan, and had more than 12 months to live when they were sent home. (Note: The "12 months" figure is somewhat of an average, it varies between doctors depending on a number of factors.) Actually, we will generally talk about Group B as being the Binzel and Kelley patients.

  • Set C) Everyone in the original master set that does not fit into Set A or Set B.

Now I am going to have to get a little technical. We first must have a "hypothesis" to test.


So let us develop a hypothesis for the medical community:

Orthodox Hypothesis:

"if we calculate the percentage of people who go into spontaneous remission in each of these three sets, there will not be a statistically significant difference in the percentage of people who go into spontaneous remission between the three sets."

As an example of this concept, if the people of Set A have a spontaneous remission rate of 1%, then we would expect the patients in Set B and Set C to also have a 1% rate of spontaneous remission.


That is what the medical community means when they talk about "spontaneous remission."

This hypothesis, in fact, is what the medical establishment would like you to believe by believing the concept of "spontaneous remission." With this hypothesis in hand, they can claim that there is "no scientific evidence" for alternative treatments for cancer.

But is the hypothesis statistically sound?

Let us consider Group A. There are millions of people in the past 100 years that have fit into Group A. Millions. It is very rare when one of these people goes into spontaneous remission. In other words, these patients were sent home to die by their doctor, and after being sent home to die, very few of them were suddenly and unexpectedly cured of their cancer and went into "spontaneous remission."


Using a percentage, it is far less than 1%. But since we don't have an exact figure, let us be very, very generous to orthodox medicine and say it is 1%.

(Note: By definition the people in Group A were never involved in an alternative treatment. What I am saying is that far less than 1% of the people in Group A, who were sent home to die, and did not secretly go on an alternative program, were suddenly cured of their cancer. I am not counting those who secretly went on an alternative program and went into remission.)

There are tens of thousands of Americans who fall into Group B.


Many of them have been treated by medical doctors or other health professionals and many of them have had to treat themselves. But let us focus on the patients of Dr. Binzel and Dr. Kelley because the medical establishment had unrestricted access to their records (Kelley) or were offered access to their records (Binzel).

According to the medical establishment's hypothesis, the percentage of people in Group B that have gone into spontaneous remission should be about 1%. To understand how statistics works, at a 99% confidence level, looking only at the Binzel and Kelley patients, if 1.2% of the people in this group went into spontaneous remission, we would reject the hypothesis of orthodox medicine.

In other words, if the cure rate for the patients of Drs. Binzel and Kelley was 1.2% or greater, a statistician would reject the above hypothesis and say that it was not a coincidence that they had such a high cure rate. In fact, if their cure rate had been 2%, most professional statisticians would not even bother to do the calculation, they would simply look at the sample size and reject the hypothesis as being ridiculous.

So what was their cure rate? Over 92%. In other words, if their cure rate had been 1.2% we would reject the hypothesis of orthodox medicine. If it had been 2%, we would have laughed at their hypothesis. But it is 92%!


The hypothesis is far, far beyond ludicrous.

Let us summarize the figures:

  • Group A) Millions of people in this set, 1% spontaneous remission rate, and that is being very generous.

  • Group B) More than 33,000 patients in this set, with a verified spontaneous remission rate of over 92%.

Now, if you know a statistician, take these numbers to him or her and have them calculate whether the original hypothesis is tenable at a 99% confidence level.


I will save you the time, it is a ludicrous hypothesis. Only a statistician right out of college would even be so naive as to do the calculation. It is far beyond ridiculous to even consider there is any credibility to the hypothesis because it represents over 1,000 standard deviations from the mean!

When I worked at a market research company we presented data to our clients when we had a sample size of 35 interviews (it is very expensive to do interviews). True, the population size was only in the hundreds, but to have millions of people in Group A and over 33,000 people in Group B, is a statistician's dream come true. To look at the difference in spontaneous remission percentages, for groups so large, yields the conclusion that the hypothesis is far beyond ridiculous.

Thus, we will flatly, and hysterically, reject the hypothesis that the Kelley and Binzel patients coincidentally went into spontaneous remission.

(Note #1: Both Dr. Kelley and Dr. Binzel used treatment protocols that were designed primarily to build the immune system, and thus are slow-developing techniques for people who had been on chemotherapy. This is because people with cancer have weak immune systems to begin with (or else they would not have gotten cancer in the first place), and chemotherapy severely damages their immune system even more.


Thus, to use a treatment technique that depends on a newly rebuilt immune system can take several or many months to work. I mention this because Kelley did not count (in his statistics) his patients who died in the first 12-18 months of treatment, and Binzel did not count his patients who died in the first 6-12 months of treatment. In short, these patients were too far gone to be cured using a technique that rebuilds the immune system and thus were not counted in their statistics.)

(Note #2: On this website I mention several times that the overall "cure rate" of alternative medicine experts, on patients who have had extensive orthodox cancer treatments and have been sent home to die, is about 50%. Does this mean that Kelley and Binzel had better treatments? No, the difference is that the statistics are counted differently.


For example, we count all patients, even if they die in the first week of treatment; whereas Kelley and Binzel did not count many of the cancer patients who died in their statistics. Current treatments are significantly more effective than the treatments Kelley and Binzel used, in fact current treatments are so good every patient is counted.)


Psychological Remission
Another one of the theories of the medical establishment is that there is some psychological phenomenon that causes theses people to believe they will go into remission, and thus they do go into remission.


I will call this "psychological remission."

First of all, let's suppose there is a psychological phenomenon that causes these people to go into remission. Then let's use it for all cancer patients. In other words, if we can convince cancer patients sent home to die that alternative treatments work, and if by doing this over 92% of the patients sent home to die are suddenly cured (even if the treatment is worthless), then let's do this for all cancer patients sent home to die!!! It is a marvelous way to cure cancer!

Of course it is an absurd theory. If it were true, psychiatry could easily develop a "suggestion" technique from this phenomenon and could easily progress psychiatry into the position of curing all of their patients with suggestions. They could then throw all of their drugs in the trash can, where they belong. But alas, because of the absurdity of this theory psychiatrists will continue to prescribe mind-altering drugs, drugs and more drugs.


By the way, there are about 100 books that criticize psychiatrists and their use of the drugs they use.

As an example of the "psychological remission" theory, let us take the experiment in Scotland done by Dr. Cameron and Linus Pauling, mentioned earlier. Dr. Cameron took a group of terminal cancer patients who had not yet had chemotherapy, and instead of chemotherapy gave them 10 grams (or more) of liquid Vitamin C a day, every day for the rest of their lives.


These patients lived several times longer than similar patients, with the same type of cancer and in the same stage when treatment started, who had been on chemotherapy.

Since there was very little scientific evidence at the time about Vitamin C and cancer (actually, this was the first Vitamin C experiment in the world on patients who had not been through chemotherapy), why would these patients think they would live several times longer than the unfortunate patients in the medical records who had taken orthodox treatments?

These were terminal patients, they were worried about getting their affairs in order, not thinking about living several times longer than expected. In fact, there was absolutely no reason for these patients to "believe" they would live one second longer than the prior patients in a similar condition who took orthodox treatments.

But let us return to Group A versus Group B.


People are so brainwashed by the medical establishment,

  • Why did anyone in Group A ever get to the point that they were sent home to die? Patients adore their oncologists, with all the big words they use.

  • Why didn't their confidence in the medical establishment, formed over years and years of watching soap operas and reading Reader's Digest, convince them that these doctors could cure them?

  • Why would Group B patients have any psychological advantage over the patients in Group A?

In fact, the chemotherapy group would have had a huge psychological advantage!!

In addition, the medical establishment had brainwashed many of the Group B patients (before they sent them home to die) into believing that all alternative practitioners are quacks.


Thus, if the Group B patients believed their new doctors were quacks, why would they suddenly go into "psychological remission?"

I could go on, but the absurdity of the two theories of the medical establishment is beyond the ability of the English language to adequately convey. Words like "ludicrous" are so weak.

But now let's us look at it this way. There has never, ever, been a drug company that submitted a cancer drug to the FDA that had even 1,000th the statistical evidence (to extend life compared to no treatment) to support that drug, than the scientific evidence for alternative treatments for cancer. The statistics they use are full of deception. Drugs are approved on the basis of their ability to shrink tumors and by comparing one toxic poison to another toxic poison, things which have absolutely nothing to do with proving an extension of life or improving life.

If you compared the valid scientific evidence for orthodox treatments for cancer versus the valid scientific evidence for alternative treatments for cancer (using valid cure rates, not tumor shrinkage), the overwhelming, gigantic, colossal scientific evidence favors the alternative treatment industry.

The "cure rates" for orthodox medicine are high only because of deception. They evaluate the patients five years after diagnosis, not until they die. They ignore patients who die of chemotherapy related illness, etc.


The "cure rates" for some of Dr. Binzel's patients were determined 18 years after treatment! He did not use the orthodox definition of "cure."

It is the most important job of the FDA, NIH and NCI to make sure there is "no scientific evidence" for alternative treatments. But there is scientific evidence. The scientific evidence for alternative treatments can be compared to a ship the size of the Queen Mary II.


The scientific evidence for orthodox treatments, by comparison, would be compared to a ship that could fit in a bathtub. I am not exaggerating. Yet the FDA says chemotherapy and orthodox medicine "has" scientific evidence and there is "no scientific evidence" for alternative treatments. It is nothing but pure corruption, it is nothing but lies.


It is all about rigging the rules to favor orthodox medicine.

Even More Scientific Evidence
Now let's compare apples to apples.


Let us use the same definition of "cure rate" for both the orthodox establishment and the alternative health people. Because virtually all of Dr. Binzel's patients and virtually all of Dr. Kelley's patients had been on chemotherapy before they went to see these doctors, we can assume that if these same patients had not had chemotherapy and radiation treatments, Binzel and Kelley would have had an even higher cure rate!

In other words, if Binzel and Kelley can cure 92% of their patients who were on chemotherapy and were sent home to die, then we can logically conclude they could have cured at least 92% of these same patients if they had gone to Binzel and Kelley directly, meaning without going to their orthodox doctors first.

Let me explain this another way.


We know these 33,000 cancer patients had an overall cure rate of 92% after most of the patients had been on chemotherapy, thus we can logically conclude that if these same patients had seen Dr. Binzel or Dr. Kelley instead of their orthodox doctors, that first, Dr. Binzel and Dr. Kelley would have had more time to work with these patients, and second, Dr. Binzel and Dr. Kelley could have cured more of their patients because their immune system had not been destroyed previously.


Thus they would have had a cure rate much higher than 92%. But let's use 92% anyway.

So using either definition of cure rate, what is the cure rate of orthodox medicine? They claim it is about 50%. They lie for reasons I have mentioned elsewhere. But let's lie too and use 50%.


Now this is what we have:

  • Group A) Millions of people in this set, a cure rate of no more than 50% (probably less than 3% for metastasis cases, if you take into account cancer deaths after the fifth year and cancer-related and chemotherapy-related deaths).

  • Group B) Over 33,000 people in this set, a cure rate of at least 92%, probably much higher.

Now if we believe the FDA, our original hypothesis would have been that orthodox medicine (Group A) would have a statistically significant higher cure rate than Group B.


Looking at the data, a laughing hyena, who knew statistics, would laugh itself to death over this hypothesis.

Remember that Binzel and Kelley had a 92% cure rate on patients sent home to die by orthodox medicine or they had at least some chemotherapy! Their immune system had been destroyed, their vital organs had been damaged, and valuable time had been lost before going to these doctors. Yet they still had over a 92% cure rate using the alternative definition!

The hypothesis that orthodox medicine is better than alternative medicine is simply a lie.


It is one layer of deception on top of another layer of deception on top of another layer.

There Is Overwhelming Scientific Evidence For Alternative Treatments
Is there scientific evidence that alternative treatments work? Absolutely, I just gave it to you.


Suppose the original hypothesis had been:

Valid Hypothesis:

"alternative doctors and treatments are so good they have a higher cure rate than orthodox doctors, even after the orthodox doctors have destroyed the immune system of their patients and lost valuable time for the alternative doctors and the orthodox doctors have sent their patients home to die."

Had that been our hypothesis, the statistics would have easily supported this hypothesis.


We come to several conclusions in this analysis:

  1. First, on an equal footing, alternative medicine is statistically far, far superior to orthodox medicine.

  2. Second, for over 33,000 patients that orthodox medicine could not cure, and sent them home to die, Dr. Binzel and Dr. Kelley cured over 92% of them. This alone should be adequate scientific evidence for the efficacy of alternative medicine.

  3. Third, there is absolutely no scientific justification for the FDA to have ever approved any orthodox treatment for cancer. Any time they approve one of these drugs, they are ignoring every possible evidence of science.

  4. Fourth, when the FDA, etc., medical establishment says there is no scientific evidence for alternative medicine, they are lying.

So how does the FDA, NIH, NCI, AMA, ACS, etc. suppress the statistically overwhelming evidence for alternative treatments for cancer?


By ignoring it (i.e. blacklisting it) and babbling about their concepts of "spontaneous remission" and what I call "psychological remission." The pharmaceutical industry controls the media due to their massive advertising dollars, thus there is no way for the general public to ever know the truth.


That is so important I am going to say it again. The pharmaceutical industry controls the media due to their massive advertising dollars, thus there is no way for the general public to ever know the truth.

The FDA are liars. It is no wonder that they love to raid the medical offices of alternative practitioners and confiscate (i.e. destroy) their medical records.

You should know that a medical doctor risks jail time and their medical license for recommending or using alternative treatments for cancer, even though the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of alternative treatments. The judicial system has demonstrated itself to be largely unable to right this wrong. The pharmaceutical industry has a very, very, very deep pocket, and they can keep appealing judgments until they find an inept or corrupt judge.


Considering that judges are frequently appointed by corrupt politicians, it doesn't take long to find an inept or corrupt judge.

More on Chemotherapy and Remission
In a previous chapter I made it clear that in order for chemotherapy (and, of course, radiation therapy), to be justified as a treatment for cancer, it had to provide a significant extension of life to its patients compared to no treatment at all and compared to every alternative treatment for cancer.


In other words, its "length of life since diagnosis" (quantity of life) had to be significantly greater than the "length of life since diagnosis" of those who rejected all treatments and orthodox treatments had to yield a significantly greater "length of life since diagnosis" than any and all alternative treatments for cancer.

What is the evidence?

The evidence is that alternative treatments for cancer, at least the Kelley and Binzel plans, provide a significantly greater "length of life since diagnosis" than orthodox treatments. Thus, and understand this clearly, there is no scientific evidence that can justify the use of orthodox treatments for cancer! The evidence is clearly that chemotherapy and radiation should not be used because they destroy the immune system, etc.

Thus we must also conclude that the concept of "remission" does NOT equate to a significantly higher "length of life since diagnosis" as compared to the treatments of Kelley and Binzel.

Thus we must logically and statistically flatly reject the concept that "remission" proves that orthodox medicine is justified in its massive and excessive costs, extreme pain, extreme sickness, destruction of the immune system, etc. for its patients.

Important Note
While the statements in this eBook tend to glorify the treatments of Pauling, Binzel and Kelley, in fact all of these treatments have been far surpassed in alternative medicine.

The reader should not drop what they are doing and take a metabolic protocol or a laetrile protocol or a Vitamin C protocol. While the original protocols of these three men have been improved, the best of the best alternative cancer treatments today either do not use any of these three protocols or only a small percentage of the new protocols overlap the three protocols of Pauling, Binzel and Kelley.

These men were giants in their day, and I do not mean to downplay their contributions to science.


But I should also admit that the giants of today are standing on the shoulders of the giants of the past.

Back to Contents

Chapter 7 - Cancer Research

Cancer Research Today
The reason progress stopped in curing cancer is because pharmaceutical companies cannot patent natural substances, and it is patents that allow them to make their billions of dollars in profits.


With a patent you have no competition, meaning you can charge whatever the "market" will pay. In other words, if a treatment for cancer came along that used only vitamins, minerals, enzymes, etc., all from nature, the pharmaceutical industry would not make any money on this treatment plan, or if they owned a vitamin company (which some of them do), they would not make very much.

They only make gigantic profits on treatment plans that use their man-made chemicals. Plus it is more profitable for them to treat symptoms than to treat causes.


Thus the pharmaceutical industry uses their vast wealth to pay others to suppress and crush the truth about alternative treatments for cancer.

There are literally hundreds of molecules that occur in nature that can kill cancer cells or stop the metastasis (spread) of cancer. Some of these are used by the pharmaceutical industry to design their mutated molecules. But the pharmaceutical industry is not interested in promoting the unmutated molecules that occur in nature, because they cannot be patented. They must isolate one of these molecules and then figure out a way to modify it so they can patent it.


But these molecules are extremely complex and it is not easy to synthesize them and modify them and still maintain their safety and effectiveness.

"Everyone should know that most cancer research is largely a fraud and that the major cancer research organizations are derelict in their duties to the people who support them."
Linus Pauling PhD (the world's only two-time unshared Nobel Prize winner)

Since the 1920s, more than 400 natural treatments for cancer have been developed that are far superior to surgery, chemotherapy and radiation.


Every one of these treatment plans, which yield better cure rates and less pain, have been brutally suppressed by the pharmaceutical industry, the AMA (American Medical Association, which is effectively a labor union), the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) and its predecessors, and the medical community.

"There is not one, but many cures for cancer available. But they are all being systematically suppressed by the ACS, the NCI and the major oncology centres. They have too much of an interest in the status quo."
Dr Robert Atkins, M.D.

While the FDA and AMA get all the attention for suppressing alternative cures for cancer, in fact it is the media which is the major suppressor.


Their major tactic is blacklisting cures for cancer and glorifying medical doctors who prescribe drugs. The television shows which glorify medical doctors are nothing but television shows designed to get people to run to their doctor every time they get sick, and thus buy drugs.

But there is an even bigger issue here. Are the pharmaceutical companies even looking for a cure for cancer? Let us suppose they were able to modify one of the natural molecules and totally cure cancer in a patient in a matter of days. Would they make this substance known to the world? They would not because patents are only for a fixed number of years.


When this number of years is up, it could be made generic and that would be the end of their gravy train.

"A solution to cancer would mean the termination of research programs, the obsolescence of skills, the end of dreams of personal glory, triumph over cancer would dry up contributions to self-perpetuating charities... It would mortally threaten the present clinical establishments by rendering obsolete the expensive surgical, radiological and chemotherapeutic treatments in which so much money, training and equipment is invested...


The new therapy must be disbelieved, denied, discouraged and disallowed at all costs, regardless of actual testing results, and preferably without any testing at all."
Robert Houston and Gary Null

This alliance or conspiracy has totally stopped progress in the treatment of cancer. Instead of looking for cures for cancer outside of the "Big 3" (surgery, chemotherapy, radiation), virtually all research is based on gradually "improving" and "perfecting" the Big 3 or on equally profitable man-made substances that do not selectively kill cancer cells. In this way there is always a cure "just around the corner."


The old "carrot and stick" trick is alive and well.

"Finding a cure for cancer is absolutely contraindicated by the profits of the cancer industry’s chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery cash trough."
Dr Diamond, M.D.

Virtually all cancer surgery is unnecessary.


Chemotherapy is nothing but toxic sludge, yet the medical community is spending a vast, vast percentage of their research money on "perfecting" this virtually useless cancer treatment plan. Knowing how much damage chemotherapy does to the immune system, the person's vital organs, the person's DNA, etc. is yet another absurdity in the "scientific evidence" that is used to get the FDA to approve the toxic chemotherapy sludge.

Radiation treatments simply burn the cancer cells to death, and burn the patient as well.

"Twenty years from now we will look back at chemotherapy and radiation as [being as] barbaric as using leeches,"
Steve Millett, manager of technology forecasts for Battelle

If I were to list the 50 most proven treatments for cancer (proven to be effective and safe), from among all treatments for cancer, chemotherapy and radiation would not be on that list.


Nor would they be in the top 200. Yet, it is research on chemotherapy and radiation treatments (and more recently DNA research) that dominate medical research today. The money spent on chemotherapy and radiation should be spent on studying the 50 most proven treatment plans, but that will never happen!

Another reason the existing viable treatment plans have been suppressed is because virtually all of the 50 best treatment plans are very inexpensive compared to the Big 3. I will translate that into English: less profits and less income for everyone from the pharmaceutical industry to doctors to hospitals to insurance companies, and so on.


The "Top 50" are far more effective treatments, less painful and far safer treatments, but the deciding factor is this: less profitable.

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
Upton Sinclair

So why is the well-funded cancer research intentionally headed in the wrong direction?


If I were to list the 50 overall most expensive and most profitable treatments for cancer, not only would chemotherapy, radiation and surgery be at the top of this list (along with other orthodox treatments), but for a typical cancer patient, an orthodox treatment plan would be more expensive than almost all 50 of the most effective and safest treatments - combined!

While it is true that the pharmaceutical industry has provided America with a marvelous standard of health, the pharmaceutical industry has gone into areas it has no business being in, in order to enhance its "earnings per share."


It would be safe to say that virtually all (but not all) cancer research today is a search for ever more expensive and ever more profitable treatments for cancer.

Gene Therapy Research
Gene therapy, the current hot research topic, while theoretically useful many years down the road, promises to be more expensive, and just as useless overall in the short term, as interferon treatments.

"The human genome may go down in history as the biggest white elephant for humanity. It cost a lot and is useless, it does not work, and is so expensive to maintain and grows so big so fast that it will bankrupt the industry as well as entire nations...


The scientific establishment has remained firmly wedded to genetic determinism, if only because it is indispensable for business.


It is also fuelling the resurgence of eugenics and genetic discrimination, and making even the most unethical uses seem compelling, such as the creation of human embryos to supply cells and tissues for transplant in so-called ‘therapeutic’ human cloning."
Mae-Wan Ho, Institute of Science in Society

To understand this quote, consider that the human DNA has between 45,000 and 60,000 genes.


These genes lead to the creation of between 450,000 and 600,000 different proteins in the human body. How long will it take, and how much will it cost, to study how all of these proteins work together? When will we see cancer deaths significantly reduced due to this technology? We will be bankrupt as a country long before that happens!

The key issue with gene therapy is when is it going to save a significant number of lives?

But there are even more basic questions.

  • Is gene therapy only going to be used in conjunction with chemotherapy, guaranteeing the cash cow for the pharmaceutical industry is not disturbed?

  • If a gene therapy technique were ever found to cure over 50% of cancer patients successfully, would the pharmaceutical industry and FDA suppress the treatment?

But it gets worse.


Gene therapy is expensive. If the money spent on the exotic gene research were spent on the proven and practical alternative treatments for cancer, cancer could be eradicated within 10 years. (Note: It is equally important that this money and research be controlled by alternative practitioners instead of corrupt government officers and corrupt fundraisers.)


By doing this, cancer would be an embarrassing footnote in history books.

In fact, it is the most ludicrous and asinine statement on earth to note that the FDA allows human trials for gene therapy, but not for natural substances (i.e. alternative medicine). There is no proof so blatant as to the corruption in the FDA than this simple fact.

But it gets worse. There is an assumption in gene therapy that cancer is caused by damaged genes. This is scientific nonsense.

It has been know for more than 100 years that cancer is caused by a microbe which gets INSIDE normal cells and turns the cells cancerous.

To make a long story short, the DNA of the microbe that causes the cancer also alters the DNS of the now cancerous cell. Thus, cancer cells may have DNA damage, but the damage does not cause cancer, it is a result of the cause of cancer - namely a highly pleomorphic cell-wall deficient bacteria.

See this article for more information on the scientific research which was really looking for the cause of cancer:


Cancer Theory Article


Cancer Research Funding
Virtually all cancer research funding in the world today is controlled by the pharmaceutical industry directly or indirectly (i.e. indirectly via its political clout in Washington D.C. and its control over such organizations as the ACS).


It is easy to see how they make their decisions as to which projects to study. The more expensive, the more exotic, and the projects with the least potential for quick cures, get the money.

The pharmaceutical industry also controls most privately funded research for cancer by suppressing the truth about cancer treatments from the sponsors and administrators of these private funds. Those handful of nonprofit organizations that claim to research alternative treatments for cancer generally are run by pro-orthodox people, thus neutralizing their purpose.


Hint: If you are going to fund a nonprofit organization to support alternative medicine, make sure its head person has a long history of fighting for alternative medicine and fighting against the corruption in orthodox medicine. Do not hire an M.D. who promises to "look into alternative medicine with an open mind" or you are wasting your money.

Some foundations, which are created by major owners of Big Pharma stock, pretend to be charitable foundations, but in fact they exist solely to control the kind of cancer research being done, to insure it is in line with orthodox goals.


Any research funded by foundations created by Big Pharma stockholders is going to be forced into orthodox research, or they will lose their funding. This includes medical schools.

In addition, the pharmaceutical industry has funded and supported a large misinformation network on the internet. Scores of web sites, including the quackwatch website, the ACS website, the NCI (National Cancer Institute, a government agency) website, etc. have nothing but misinformation about alternative cancer treatment protocols.

The FDA and FTC (Federal Trade Commission) are doing everything in their power to crush anyone who sells cancer treatments that work (note: they also crush cancer treatments that don't work, thus it appears to the public that every treatment plan they crush doesn't work, but many of them do work - it is truly unfortunate that there really are some quacks out there, the quacks do their worst damage to society by giving orthodox medicine the ammunition to make all alternative cancer treatments, even the valid ones, look ineffective).


The AMA will yank the license of any doctor that uses these treatment plans. The FDA and FTA are also trying to shut down web sites that sell valid products that treat cancer.


I will say more about these things later.

"The thing that bugs me is that the people think the FDA is protecting them. It isn't. What the FDA is doing and what the public thinks it is doing are as different as night and day."
Dr. Herbert Ley, former FDA commissioner, 1970

Thus we have a situation where medical progress came to a grinding halt over 100 years ago.


Heart disease prevention progress has also stopped in its tracks. Considering the direction political corruption is moving, progress will never start again. At the current time there is an "information conspiracy" to crush the truth about alternative treatments. But soon there will also be an "availability conspiracy," meaning people will not be able to buy the substances necessary to treat cancer with natural substances.


Corruption and greed are growing at an alarming rate. And anyone who tries to slow it down is crushed.

The media, of course, including Fox News, is the big problem. Their carefully designed blacklisting of viable cancer treatments and blacklisting of anyone who stands up for true alternative medicine, is the main cause of the general public being so clueless.

There have been many books written on why you don't know about the 50 best treatment plans for cancer, such as:

  • World Without Cancer, by G. Edward Griffin

  • The Healing of Cancer, by Barry Lynes

  • The Assault on Medical Freedom, by P. Joseph Lisa

  • The Politics of Cancer Revisited, by Samuel S. Epstein, M.D.

  • Unhealthy Charities - Hazardous To Your Health and Wealth, by James T. Bennett and Thomas J. DiLorenzo,

...and many, many others.

The reason you don't know about any of these scores of books is because they don't get any publicity in the media. When a book comes out that makes orthodox medicine look good, it is likely to get lots of free publicity in the media.


But not the books that support alternative medicine and certainly not the books that expose the corruption in Big Pharma and its puppets.

There is a little bit of good news, however. But it is only a little bit of good news. There are pure alternative cancer research organizations, such as the Independent Cancer Research Foundation (ICRF) and the American Anti-Cancer Institute, among a few others. That is the good news. The bad news is that these organizations have virtually zero money for research and none of these organizations has a single full-time cancer researcher as of this writing (April, 2010).

Since I belong to the ICRF, let me say that the ICRF board members are responsible for 3 (and possibly 4) of the best 15 alternative cancer treatments on earth. The research they are doing is state-of-the-art.


But they have far less than 1/10,000th of the money of just the American Cancer Society.


Are you surprised?

Back to Contents

Chapter 8 - Case Study of Media Corruption

Introduction to the Reader's Digest
I have been reading the Reader's Digest, that bastion of American values, for several decades now. I love the jokes.


But over the years I have noticed a very consistent pattern. It seems that every issue has gobs of pharmaceutical ads, every issue has at least one article glorifying some doctor, or at least the medical profession, and they never talk about alternative medicine, except about the most basic nutrition, which is pretty harmless to the pharmaceutical industry.

Just for example, in the June, 2003 issue, the following pharmaceutical ads appear:

  • Lipitor (Pfizer) - 4 pages (these types of ads generally include 1 or 2 pages of information and warnings - but they have to pay for these pages!)

  • Prostate (Real Health Laboratories) - 1 page

  • Advair (GlaxoSmithKline) - 3 pages

  • Diabet Aid (Del Pharmaceuticals) - 1 page

  • Zrytec (Pfizer) - 2 pages

  • Plavix (Bristol-Myers Squibb Company) - 3 pages

  • Nexium (AstraZeneca) - 2 pages

  • Effexor XR (Wyeth) - 3 pages

  • Clarinex (Schering) - 3 pages

  • Synvisc (Wyeth) - 2 pages plus another 1/2 page

  • Aventis (Aventis Pharmaceuticals) - 1 page

That is 25 1/2 pages of space paid for by the pharmaceutical industry.


Do you think that would buy some bias in the Reader's Digest? It seems that the pattern I have observed over the years proves that it does.

There were also three articles glorifying orthodox medicine: a regular feature called: Medical Update, an article: Saving Michael Bowen, and the book section: The Unlikely Gift.

There was also an article on Vitamin D, which was actually quite good, and even talks about preventing colon cancer and possibly other types of cancer. With the massive number of people taking vitamins now, simple nutrition articles are almost mandated these days in the mass media. The article also glorifies the National Cancer Institute, as if they were a government agency with integrity.


They had to slip that in.

The Reader's Digest Book - Heart Healthy For Life
As an example of how periodicals suppress the truth and lead people astray, I wish to talk about a case study regarding a book written by the Reader's Digest. This book is not about cancer, it is about preventing heart disease.

Enter Linus Pauling, two time Nobel Prize winner. He and his associates, and a Dr. Rath, developed a protocol for preventing heart disease. It was, and is, a very successful prevention protocol.


But, as always, Linus forgot to include Big Pharma profits in his program. Oops. His program has been known about for years by a handful of people.

I quote from an internet site:

"With vitamin C consumption already on the rise, after Nobelist Linus Pauling's book on Vitamin C was published in 1970, the Linus Pauling Institute reports (and confirms), that average vitamin C consumption in the US increased 300%!


(According to a biography - Pauling in His Own Words - Pauling wrote his 1970 lay book because of the false information about vitamin C, and other vitamins, being disseminated by so-called Medical "authorities" through the Media at that time.)


As the above chart and data indicate, total CVD mortality peaked between 1950 and 1970, with coronary disease peaking close to 1970. However, during the decade of the 1970s, deaths from Coronary Heart Disease began a steep decline. We attribute this staggering 30%-40% decline to Pauling's book. The United States was the only developed country to experience such a decline. This is not a statistical fluke.


We believe these facts are connected and not merely coincidental. The decline in heart disease, matched with the increase awareness and intake of Vitamin C, strongly supports the Pauling/Rath Unified Theory."

Because of the book on the common cold, Vitamin C consumption increased 300%.


Was it a coincidence that heart disease decreased dramatically after the book came out? As the above author argues, it was not a coincidence.

With this statistic in mind, Reader's Digest wrote a book on heart disease called: Heart Healthy for Life. It was a book on preventing heart disease, so of course they devoted one or two chapters to the Linus Pauling prevention program - right? Not!


They devoted one page to natural or alternative medicine prevention plans. This page doesn't mention Linus Pauling or his prevention protocol.

This is the opening line of the one page on alternative medicine (1/3 of page 96 and 2/3 of page 97):

"No sooner do researchers spot a substance in food that seems to fight disease than some clever entrepreneur begins to put it into pills or potions."

Right off the bat, in the first sentence, all alternative medicine people are stereotyped as "clever entrepreneurs" who make witch's potions.


Gee, I always thought it was Big Pharma that made the big bucks and worshipped money. The alternative medicine people are put in the same category as the witch in the Wizard of Oz.

But it gets worse. After quoting a poorly designed study on Vitamin E, the book concludes there is inadequate evidence to judge the effectiveness of alternative prevention plans.

The book totally ignores that heart disease took a nosedive after people increased their consumption of Vitamin C. While Vitamin E is in the Linus Pauling prevention protocol, it is not one of the three main nutrients in the program.


The Reader's Digest book did not mention Vitamin C, L-Proline or L-Lysine, which are the three main supplements in the Linus Pauling/Dr. Rath prevention program. Nor did the study they quoted use any of these supplements. What a shock.

Furthermore, in the study the dosage of Vitamin E that was given the participants was ludicrously small. It is also almost certain that the Vitamin E used was dl-alpha tocopherol (synthetic), rather than d-alpha tocopherol (natural). The study was designed by people who had no idea what they were doing, or it was designed by people who wanted to discredit Linus Pauling, but yet it is the main study the Reader's Digest article depended on when it talked about alternative medicine.

But it gets worse.


This same book has an entire chapter on the wonders of prescription drugs for the heart (Chapter 10). It has another chapter on how wonderful heart surgery is, no doubt it is something everyone should have (Chapter 11). It has yet another chapter to convince you to run to your doctor as fast as possible to see if you have heart problems (Chapter 3).


Of course they also talk about all the highly profitable "theories" of heart disease, such as cholesterol.

Three chapters on orthodox medicine (actually it is far more than that, but these are entire chapters dedicated to orthodox medicine), one page on alternative medicine, and that page depended on an absurd study that had only a small part of the Linus Pauling therapy!


When you see all the advertising by the pharmaceutical companies in the Reader's Digest magazines, are you surprised? Am I accusing someone in Reader's Digest of intentionally suppressing natural prevention measures in order to get more advertising money for Reader's Digest?


Because of the complex rules a media company must follow when dealing with alternative medicine (in order to maintain their pharmaceutical industry advertising dollars), and because Reader's Digest has a long history of following those rules perfectly, it is virtually impossible that Reader's Digest coincidentally follows those rules decade after decade.


Thus, considering the opening remark about alternative medicine, and the massive amount of support for orthodox medicine over the years, then yes, I am saying that someone in Reader's Digest knew the rules and made sure they were followed.


Unfortunately, Reader's Digest does represent American values, or should I say: corporate values.

"There is no such thing, at this date of the world's history, in America, as an independent press. You know it and I know it. There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper I am connected with.


Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job. If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone.


The business of the journalists is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it, and what folly is this toasting an independent press? We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance.


Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes."
John Swinton (1829-1901) pre-eminent New York journalist & head of the editorial staff at the New York Times. Quoted one night between 1880-1883.
Quoted by Upton Sinclair in his 1919 book: The Brass Check: A Study of American Journalism, page 400

Even though Upton Sinclair was famous by 1919, because he was criticizing corruption in the media, he had to self-publish this book.

Back to Contents

Chapter 9 - How The Media and Establishment Control The Public

You might be curious what techniques our public schools, the news media, our politicians, etc. etc. use to control the public.


Their methods are more sophisticated than you probably think. Some of the techniques used by orthodox medicine have already been discussed. Controlling the information that the general public has access to is absolutely essential to the establishment.


The reason is that in school or in life you are probably at some time going to run into a "renegade" who just refuses to believe what he or she is told and has a different point of view. It is the control of information that conditions you to ignore what they say.


If you don't believe me, just read on.

Hearing Both Sides of an Issue
To illustrate the control of information (aka brainwashing), let me use Darwin's "Theory of Evolution" as an example of teaching what I want to get across, since that is a controversial area in which everyone seems to have an opinion.


More importantly, it is the only theory that is allowed to be taught in our schools.

There are two broad categories of theories about evolution:

  • first, are those who think that evolution occurred by total accident

  • second, are those who think that God had a hand in evolution or God simply created each species independently

Let us call the first group the "evolutionists" and the second two groups the "creationists."


There are actually several different camps (i.e. different theories) within each group, and there are hybrid groups (i.e. hybrid theories), but let us assume there are only two simple groups.

To visualize the two different camps, suppose there is a large field and there is a fence that bisects the field and you are standing at one end of the fence looking down the fence. On the right side of this fence are the evolutionists (the people who make up the "establishment") and on the left side of this fence are the creationists (the people who disagree with the "establishment" point of view).

You have the choice of siding with the establishment or the renegades. In some cases this choice could affect your job. For example, if you taught biology in a public high school, and you believed in creationism, and taught creationism in your classroom, you might lose your job.

If you are only looking for the benefits, and a promotion, then there is no question as to what theory you will teach. The evolution side of the fence has virtually all the benefits. But let us suppose you are one of those rare people who are more interested in truth than benefits.


What are you going to do?

Suppose you want to know the truth (as best as you are capable of honestly determining as an "open-minded" person) - is evolutionism or creationism correct based on the evidence currently available?

Suppose that you decide to start your decision making journey by talking first with the evolutionists; because everything you have heard in school is that evolution has been proven to be true. So you head to the right side of the fence and start talking to an evolutionist.

Suppose this person tells you all the reasons why evolution occurred by accident. He might go into microevolution (what changes can occur within a species that shares the same genome), macroevolution (the creation of new genomes), why transitional species cannot be found in many cases, punctuated equilibrium, all the bones paleontologists have found, and so on.

After this conversation, you start to walk away, but the person stops you. Then this same evolutionist starts telling you all of the things that are wrong with the creationists. He tells you one theory after another of the creationists and why each theory cannot be true and what a bunch of goons they are.

After this conversation, you now feel that you understand both the evolutionist's and the creationist's theories of evolution.


You decide it is not necessary to go to the left side of the fence and talk to a creationist because you already think you understand their views and why their views are wrong.

A Common Mistake
If you made such a decision, you would be making a common mistake:

you have heard both sides of the issue, but from only one person on one side of the fence.

You have really only heard how the people on one side of the fence feel about the issues. But you haven't heard the arguments of the creationists, from a creationist, nor have you heard why the creationists think that the evolutionists are wrong.

There are actually four categories of the two sides (these are the four things you need to hear to make an informed decision):

  1. pro-evolution (from the evolutionist side)

  2. anti-creation (from the evolutionist side)

  3. pro-creation (from the creationist side)

  4. anti-evolution (from the creationist side)

In other words, from the right side of the fence you have heard the pro-evolution arguments and also from the right side of the fence you have heard all of the anti-creationist arguments.


But note that you have not heard the pro-creationist arguments, from a creationist, nor have you heard the anti-evolution arguments, from a creationist. You have only heard two of the four categories because you have only heard from one person who is on one side of the fence.

Do you really know both sides of the issue? No you don't! You only know one side of the issue and two of the four categories.


Until you go to the left side of the fence and hear about the pro-creationist views, from a creationist, and you hear the anti-evolution views, from a creationist, you don't have a basis for making an objective decision.

The Way We Have Been Taught
At this point we need to stop and think for a moment.


We have been conditioned all of our lives not to listen to the "renegades." In physics, you hear how wonderful Einstein was, but you are told never to talk to anyone who challenges Einstein (someone like Roland De Witte, for example). In science class you were taught that evolution has been proven to be true, and you have been taught that the creationists are all a bunch of religious nuts.

This same kind of bias has been drilled into you for every conceivable type of issue. You have graduated from school thinking you have all the answers and that there are no open issues that need to be debated. In other words, you think the establishment is all-knowing.

All your life you have been taught not to listen to the people on both sides of the fence. All your life you have been taught by people inside the "establishment" and you have been taught that what the "establishment" teaches is true, and you have been taught what is wrong with the renegades and you have been taught not to listen to them. All your life you have been taught two of the four things you need to make an informed decision. You have been brainwashed.

And now I come along and tell you to listen to the renegades.


Why? Because, quite frankly, sometimes the "establishment" is wrong. Actually, it is frequently wrong. There, I said it, sometimes the renegades are right! You will never, never know when the renegades are right unless you talk to one of them with an open-mind!

Did it ever occur to you that what the "establishment" tells you about the creationists is not what the creationists really believe, or perhaps what you heard about the creationists is what only a very small percentage of them believe?


You cannot trust an evolutionist to correctly represent the views of the creationists. They are biased. They will pick the most fantastic views of a small percentage of the creationists, then twist and contort their views. They will leave out the beliefs of the other 90% of the creationists.


When they are done, what they say may not even remotely represent what a real creationist believes.

"Scientific" Research
But it goes much, much deeper than that.


For example, the research done by paleontologists involves the dating of bones. In dating these bones there are a wide range of assumptions that must be made. Rather than give the public a huge range of dates for a bone (due to unknown issues such as moisture, radiation, etc.), they pick one specific date for the age of the bone, and that date is very generous to the evolutionists.


In other words, they assume evolution is true when they pick a single date for the age of a bone, when in fact they should pick a very, very wide range of dates due to unknown information.

For example, many bones are found on the edge of rivers long dried up. Even if those bones were next to the river (when it was still flowing) for just a few hundred years, the moisture from the river could have had a huge affect on the estimated date of when that animal died.

Thus, by using generous assumptions, and not making it known that in fact there are assumptions made, they make it look like evolution,

"has been proven to be true."

Evolution has not been proven to be true. Much of the evidence comes from generous assumptions with the data.

I can assure the reader that in some cases (my background is in mathematics and physics), the assumptions they make with the data amounts to 99% of the "evidence" used to reach their final conclusion.


This is true in virtually every field of "science."

Truth Versus Benefits
But aside from all of these issues, did it ever occur to you that the people in the establishment have a conflict of interest? Let us go back to the point where you were standing at the end of the fence and had not yet moved. You had a choice to make.


Before you ever decided to look into the issues you could have made your decision based on which side offered you the most benefits.

  • Did it ever occur to you that what you hear in the news media, for example, is being told to you by people who chose the "establishment" side for the sole reason the establishment had more benefits than the renegades?

  • Did it ever occur to you that you have not been taught by "truth-seekers," but rather you have been taught by "benefit-seekers?"

The deciding issue for many people is not which side is right or wrong, but which side offers the most benefits.


It is not a debate between truth and error, it is a debate between benefits. And many, many of the people you have listened to throughout your life have been people who have chosen benefits over truth!

We have been conditioned to believe that an "open-minded" person is someone who absorbs the propaganda of why the establishment is always right, and defends the storyline propaganda of why the renegades are always wrong.

So in reality "you" (the hypothetical person who is trying to find the truth about evolution) probably have absolutely no desire to talk to anyone on the left side of the fence. You have heard everything you think you need to hear. Thus, you are a member of the establishment and a certified "defender of the faith" of the evolutionists.

End of story - time to go home.

Your Trip To The Left Side of the Fence
Well, just for the heck of it, out of morbid curiosity and to test your debate skills, you decide to walk over to the left side of the fence and talk to a creationist.


You carefully walk up to (gulp, drum roll): Hermann the Horrible Hermit Heretic. Be careful, you say to yourself, close your ears and don't listen, this person is an idiot. Oh well, its cold outside and your hands are in your pocket, so you listen.

You shake hands with Hermann and exchange pleasantries. Right away you are amazed at something: Hermann can talk! You had always been taught that creationists had the IQ of a rodent and wore beanie caps with rotors.

Hermann starts by talking about the first living organism, and about its DNA component and its cell membrane component.


He states that even though it is absurd that a 300,000 nucleotide chain (300 genes with an average length of 1,000 nucleotides) can randomly form, even if it did, the statistical probability that the first DNA had a permutation of nucleotides, such that 300 viable proteins could be created by this DNA genome, has a probability that is far less than:

10-30,000 (this is a probability of 1 divided by a 1 with 30,000 zeros behind it).

(Note: the 10-30,000 figure is based on the assumption that 1 in 100 random permutations of 1,000 nucleotides will form a protein vital to a living organism. This is a very generous figure for the evolutionists, because the real figure is probably far, far less than 1 in a billion.)

He then stated that even if it could create 300 proteins, there is an absurdly small probability that these 300 proteins would form a set of proteins that could support the life of a new organism. He did not give a probability for this because there isn't enough known about sets of proteins.

You quickly do some math in your head. You remember from science class that there are 1080 atoms in our universe. Then, you imagine there are 1029,920 universes just like ours in a cluster (that is a one followed by 29,920 zeros). All of these universes combined would have 1030,000 atoms.

Suppose some government wants to do a lottery and in order to win the lottery you have to pick the single, correct atom from among all of the atoms in the 1029,920 universes. The probability of winning this lottery is 10-30,000.


You ask yourself:

"who is so bad at math they would buy a ticket in that lottery?"

Then you remember what your math teacher taught you:

"the lottery is a tax on people who are bad at math."

Then you realize there are a lot of people who would spend their life savings buying lottery tickets in that lottery. Finally, you come out of your daydreaming and realize that Hermann was talking while you were doing the math in your head.

Then you hear about the ridiculous probability of the first cell membrane forming by accident. For two hours Hermann gives you an earful about how incredibly complex a eukaryotic cell is. It is so complex that even the exobiologists admit that one could not form by accident from a prebiotic pool.


Thus, they claim that the first cell was a prokaryotic cell, and that there are conditions where a prokaryotic cell can survive without an organic host (since this is the first cell, there are no organic hosts to feed on). But even so, Hermann tells you that prokaryotic cells still could not have formed by accident because they are almost as complex as eukaryotic cells.

Then you hear that the first DNA and first cell membrane could not have formed in the same prebiotic pool, and thus you are told it was virtually impossible that they could ever get together.

Hermann then starts talking about new genomes and macroevolution. You then learn about the improbability of irreducibly complex protein systems forming large numbers of complex inter-related proteins in the same random mutation event in macroevolution.

You learn about the mathematical absurdities caused by the issue of viable permutations of nucleotides from random mutations needed to create any new gene in any new genome. You hear that this is another case of absurd probabilities caused by permutations.

You then hear about the "morphing of the embryo."


A new creature starts out as one type of cell, but when the "baby" is born it has many different kinds of cells. This means that some cells, when they divide, must divide into two different kinds of cells. The timing of these strange divisions has to be with pinpoint accuracy. You learn that the instructions for this pinpoint accuracy must be built into the DNA, thus making random mutations even less likely to be advantageous (i.e. requiring more precise chains of nucleotides).


When Hermann started taking about the morphing "timing" issues and base-2 trees, you started thinking that Hermann might even be smart.

Then Hermann starts to talk about the evolutionists (this is the anti-evolution part, heard from a creationist viewpoint).

He tells you that the first argument the evolutionists use is that "we exist," thus our existence is proof of evolution. Hermann then likens this logic to the theory that all of Shakespeare's plays were written by six monkeys locked in the basement of a building.


He states: is it logical that because Shakespeare's plays "exist," that the monkey theory is true?

You then hear how "punctuated equilibrium" is really a super irreducibly complex protein system, and how absurd it is to claim that it was not necessary for irreducibly complex protein systems to have mutated all at once, but at the same time to believe in punctuated equilibrium. You hear why the phylogenetic tree is really a cover-up for the gaps in transitional species. You also learn about the massive assumptions evolutionists make with regards to carbon dating bones.


You also hear the totally unproven assumptions and very shallow logic evolutionists make with respect to mitochondrial DNA and nuclear DNA. And so on.

Ten hours pass and you realize the sun went down and it is now dark - and Hermann is still talking. You also realize it has been four hours since you had a clue what he was talking about. You also realize that this is not what you expected. You expected some wild and crazy theories. But in fact you realize that creationists are not stupid and they really do have some very strong arguments.


Then you also realize that what you had been taught by the evolutionists, about what the creationists believe, has absolutely no relationship to what the creationists actually do believe.

You finally go home, very confused.

Note: if you are interested in learning more about creation science, see one of these two books:

  • For the general public: Introduction to the Mathematics of Evolution

  • For LDS: Prophets or Evolution - An LDS Perspective


Final Comments
This simple story demonstrates the very sad state of affairs in America and throughout the world.


Neither schools, nor corporations, nor governments want anyone to hear both sides of any issue from [the people on] both sides of the fence. They would rather have a brainwashed student than a thinking student. Schools act as if they have all of the answers and that it is not necessary to teach students to think for themselves. Students are graded on how well they regurgitate "facts," not on how well they think.


Students learn very early on that all of the benefits are on one side of the fence and that they should spend their life gathering up the benefits.

"Education... has produced a vast population able to read but unable to distinguish what is worth reading."
G.M. Trevelyan

People are taught from birth to assume and expect that those in the "establishment" (such as the schools, the news broadcasters and newspapers):

  1. Have no vested interests or conflicts of interest

  2. Have perfect intelligence

  3. Have all the facts for both sides of the fence

  4. Are totally neutral and unbiased

  5. Have perfect integrity

  6. Have your best interests in mind

  7. Are truly open-minded

  8. Love truth more than benefits

And above all, you are never, never allowed to think that money or power (i.e. benefits) could possibly influence what the establishment teaches you.

Dream on, this is the real world we are talking about.

It is quite probable, that from the time a person starts first grade, to the time they get a PhD or M.D., they never once hear both sides of any issue from the people on both sides of a fence. And even if they do, they have been so brainwashed by one side, or they are so interested in the benefits of one side, they simply pay no attention to the "other side."

As incredible as this sounds, it is difficult to get people to grasp the concept of hearing both sides of an issue from both sides of the fence. All your life you have been taught that it is not necessary.


Society always has all of the answers, and anyone who does not agree with society is a crackpot, quack, moron, rebel, incorrigible, mentally unstable, or whatever.

Applying The Concepts of the Fence to Cancer
Now lets talk about the fence that separates orthodox medicine from alternative medicine (it is more like a steel-reinforced brick wall with machine gun towers on it, and the machine gun towers are all owned by the orthodox side).

When your doctor went through medical school, he or she was taught all the good things about chemotherapy, radiation treatments and all the other orthodox medical treatments for cancer.


If your doctor was told anything about alternative treatments for cancer, it was the very biased bad things. Sound familiar? Has your doctor ever spent one hour listening to an expert on alternative treatments for cancer? It is very doubtful, though he or she has probably heard a few experiences from their patients.

Similarly, you are second level brainwashed, meaning you have been taught by your brainwashed doctor (who doesn't know anything truthful about alternative treatments for cancer), all of the good things about chemotherapy.


You no doubt have heard many times how wonderful medical schools are and how they are based on a solid scientific foundation. You have been taught that the AMA (American Medical Association) is carefully watching out for your health. Not only are all of these things false, but there are about one hundred books that have been written to expose the falsity of these assumptions.

With all of the brainwashing from the media, your schools and your doctors, after all of this, suppose you pick up a copy of the book "World Without Cancer - The Story of Vitamin B17" by G. Edward Griffin. You decide to read this book with an open mind. IMPOSSIBLE!


There is no possible way you can read this book with an open mind.


If you read it at all you will read it to find the errors in it, and what is wrong with G. Edward Griffin.

Do you understand? Every day of your life, for all the years of your life, you have been brainwashed and have heard only two of the four elements of the debate. There is no possible way you can undo that brainwashing in 2 hours.


You can't read that book with an open mind. It is impossible for you to ignore many years of solid, daily brainwashing. Everything you have seen on television, everything you have read in books, everything you have been taught in school, every magazine article you have read in your life, have all told you the same story line - orthodox medicine is far superior to alternative medicine.

So what can you do if you want to know the truth? You can't, but you can start. You have to have a clear understanding, and a clear admission to yourself, that you have only heard two of the four truth categories, and that now it is time to study the other two categories. You must want to hear the other two categories.


Then, and only then, can you make the attempt to read it with an open mind.

Back to Contents

Chapter 10 - Other Techniques the Media and Government Use

Other Control Tactics
What I described in the prior chapter is the tip of the iceberg of techniques that are used by the media to brainwash people.


Here is a short list of other techniques:


  • Diversion/Distraction From What is Really Going On:

    This tactic is where the media diverts your attention from the real issues and consumes your attention with irrelevant and/or far less important issues.


    For example, America always seems to be at war.

    This never-ending battle with our "enemies" is partly a diversion to distract people's attention from corporate and government corruption.

    "America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
    Abraham Lincoln

    By diverting people's attention towards external enemies, American politicians are able to distract our attention from our internal corruption, which are like a virus or "cancer" and cause far more damage than our external enemies.


    The public has no idea how corrupt many high ranking officials are because they are consumed with external "enemies."

    "Our government has kept us in a perpetual state of fear - kept us in a continuous stampede of patriotic fervor - with the cry of grave national emergency...


    Always there has been some terrible evil to gobble us up if we did not blindly rally behind it by furnishing the exorbitant sums demanded. Yet, in retrospect, these disasters seem never to have happened, seem never to have been quite real."
    General Douglas MacArthur, 1957

    As an example, because of corruption in Congress, Congress has given Codex Alimentarius Commission (an agency of the United Nations) the authority to determine what nutrients can and cannot be sold in America (this is a major loss of American sovereignty).


    This authority, for a variety of reasons, has not yet been exercised.

    "What is the Codex Alimentarius Commission?


    This Commission consists of pharmaceutical executives and international delegates and was established in 1962 by the World Health Organization and the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization to develop international food standards to 'protect' consumer health and to facilitate 'fair' trading practices in foods...


    Vitamins, minerals, and natural remedies help prevent illness and thus threaten the pharmaceutical market.


    Concerned citizens believe that the pharmaceutical industry is using Codex to discredit the effectiveness of natural therapies and prop up its trillion-dollar market for beta blockers, calcium antagonists, cholesterol-lowering products and so on."


  • Avoiding The Debate By Using Deception:
    In this tactic, the media makes it sound like they are covering all of the issues of a debate, when in fact they are only talking about a small segment of the issues in the debate.


    For example, in December, 2002, Newsweek magazine published a major article on "alternative medicine." They even talked about cancer. But you can rest assured they didn't mention any of the top 100 alternative treatments for cancer. They were talking mainly about alternative medicine being used to treat the symptoms of chemotherapy.

    By doing this the reader thought that when they finished reading the article, they knew everything there was to know about alternative treatments for cancer, when in fact they knew absolutely nothing about alternative treatments for cancer. In other words, the readers didn't even know there is a debate or war between orthodox and alternative medicine.


    They think the two sides are closely working together.


  • Misinformation:
    This takes many forms. It can take the form of bogus research, designed to discredit valid research. It can take the form of misinformation about treatment plans, bogus "patients," and so on. Anything that includes a lie or false information fits into this category. And that is a lot of things.


  • Blacklisting:
    This is an interesting form of propaganda. I have previously mentioned the four viewpoints that a person needs to look at in order to make an informed decision. In this method only one of the four viewpoints are mentioned, the orthodox view of itself.


    The other three subjects are totally blacklisted, as if one side didn't even exist.

    This, in fact, is a major way of keeping the truth about alternative medicine from the public, the subject is simply ignored. Since most people get the vast, vast majority of their information from the media, the people don't even know one side of the debate even exists. I will give examples of this in a future chapter.


  • The Last Word:
    Some media shows like to pretend they present both sides of issues. Frequently, when they present both sides of an issue they will actually have someone from both sides of the fence speak. But it is not what you think.


    The person the media station doesn't like is always interviewed first. The selections chosen from the interview with the person they don't like may be very abbreviated and may be designed to make the person look rather dull, meaning not very smart. But it gets worse.

    They then let the person they like give the "last word." This person always explains why the first person was wrong, then explains why their own interpretation is correct. The second person is always portrayed as very sharp and very intelligent. A good announcer can enhance the differences between the two people and make the second person look even smarter.

    Putting the two interviews together, it is partly an attempt to mute the first person, then let the second person criticize the first person and then present the "far more intelligent" case by the second person. It is critical that the favored person go last. That way when the second person is finished, so is the debate. The first person never gets a chance to refute what the second person said.

    The listener is left with a bad taste in their mouth for the first person and ends up thinking they understand all of the issues.


    The listener, of course, ends up agreeing with the second person. It is a technique that appears on the surface to be unbiased, but yet it is among the most pernicious techniques of all.


  • Name Calling/Slander:
    This is a technique of belittling the major players of the enemy. Quackwatch uses this technique in almost every article they write. They say something slanderous about one of the proponents of alternative medicine. They even have an entire article attempting to belittle Linus Pauling!


  • Glorifying the Team Players:
    It is hard to pick up an issue of Reader's Digest (in fact it is probably impossible) without finding at least one article that glorifies orthodox medicine.


    Frequently, they have an article glorifying a doctor. Other times they have an article about how a patient was saved by one or more wondrous orthodox doctors. Other times they have an article about a disease and how orthodox medicine is "closing in" on this disease. Etc.


    They are constantly glorifying orthodox medicine.


  • We Must Save The Public:
    Enter the corrupt FDA, FTC, ad nauseum.


    As I write this, the FTC is trying to get more control over the internet. It totally irks them to know that there is a medium that they cannot control. Their job is to shut down, by force if necessary, all truth about cancer. They do a great job. They, of course, focus on the abuses that are done on the internet, as an excuse to gain more control over the internet.

    They want this control in order to suppress the vast amount of truth that can be found on the internet and the potential for distributing truth on the internet.


    In other words, they focus on people who are less than 1% as corrupt as they are, and use the abuses of these people,


    • "to save the public by giving them (the far more corrupt group) more power."


    This is by far the most common tactic used by power hungry governments. Almost all power the government gains (e.g. a new government agency or new powers) is by finding some "event" they can leverage to argue for more power so they can presumably protect the public.

    For example, the Patriot Act, which is supposedly a reaction to terrorism, is in fact nothing but trashing the constitutional protections we have. Virtually the entire Bill of Rights has been destroyed by using this technique. The media are masters at blowing up the significance of a single event in order to promote an ever growing and ever more powerful government.


    Hitler used this technique all the time.


    • "The welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants."
      Albert Camus, author


  • Step By Step:
    This is not so much a misinformation technique as it is a way to get what you want in spite of overwhelming public concern.


    As an example, suppose a company wants its product approved by the FDA. But suppose that the overwhelming public scientific evidence is that the product is toxic and causes brain damage, death and a host of other problems. It is not enough to simply have the pharmaceutical company produce false "scientific" studies.


    Even overt political corruption cannot get you what you want. What do you do?

    No problem, you introduce the product in stages, step by step, such that no single step causes too much of an outcry, but taken together, the steps get you the profits that you want. Of course, a good example is Aspartame.


    Here is a very, very shortened summary of how J.D. Searle got Aspartame approved, even though it was known to cause over 90 different illnesses:

    • "[Aspartame] is essentially a chemical weapon designed to impact populations en masse. It is an rDNA derivative made from two amino acids, L-phenylalanine, L-aspartic acid and methanol. Originally discovered during a search for an ulcer drug in 1966, it was "approved" by the FDA in 1974 as a "food additive".


      Approval was followed by a retraction based on demonstrated public concern over the fact that the substance produced brain tumors in rats.


      According to the 1974 FDA task force set up to examine aspartame and G.D. Searle,


      • "we have uncovered serious deficiencies in Searles operations and practices, which undermine the basis for reliance on Searle’s integrity in conducting high quality animal research to accurately determine the toxic potential of its products."


      The task force report concluded with the recommendation that G.D. Searle should face a Grand Jury "to identify more particularly the nature of the violations, and to identify all those responsible."

    In 1976, an FDA "task force" brought into question all of G.D. Searle’s aspartame testing procedures conducted between 1967 and 1975.


    The final FDA report noted faulty and fraudulent product testing, knowingly misrepresented product testing, knowingly misrepresented findings, and instances of irrelevant animal research. In other word, illegal criminal activity. Understandably scared, Searle officials sought to suppress the FDA findings and obstruct justice.


    They turned to Nixon and Ford administration operative Donald Rumsfeld and elected him "chairman of the Searle organization."


    In 1977, the Wall Street Journal detailed the fact that Rumsfeld made efforts to "mend fences" by asking "what Searle could do" in the face of the changes. Also in 1977, Dr. Adrian Gross, a pathologist working for the FDA, uncovered evidence that G.D. Searle might have committed criminal fraud in withholding adverse data on aspartame...

    In 1981, under pressure from the soft drink lobby, FDA Commissioner Hayes approved the initial use of aspartame in dry foods and as a tabletop sweetener, discounting public complaints as anecdotal and ignoring three FDA scientists, who voiced the fact that there were serious questions concerning brain tumor tests after having done an in-house study.


    Hayes was widely profiled as a man who believed that approval for new drugs and additives was "too slow" because "the FDA demanded too much information." Hayes also ignored the fact that the biased scientific studies paid for by Searle were faulty. After leaving the FDA, Hayes took the post of senior medical consultant for the public relations firm retained by Searle... A subsequent inquiry "found no impropriety."

    In July 1983 it was approved for use in soft drinks in the United States, followed three months later by approval in Britain by the Ministry of Agriculture. All this was done despite the fact that the Department of Defense knew that aspartame was neurotoxic and harmful to human health.


    These facts were deliberately suppressed by the government.


    It is also interesting that in 1981 FDA scientist Dr. Robert Condon, in an internal government document, said,


    • "I do not concur that aspartame has been shown to be safe with respect to the induction of brain tumors." All safety was thrown aside because of pressure from Searle."
      Joseph Mercola, M.D.

    In other words, with enough effort and money, and using the step by step protocol (from dry foods to soft drinks), virtually anything can eventually get approved by the FDA.

    The step by step protocol is used by virtually all governments to get what they want. When Hitler conquered a country he did not just march in and kill all of the Jews, that would have raised a public outcry. He did it small step by small step, such as by making the Jews wear arm bands, then causing them to lose their companies, then segregating them from the general public, then putting them in concentration camps, etc.

    As another example, the anti-gun people do not want private citizens to own guns.


    As the bumper sticker says:


    • "When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns."


    Thus, step-by-step, laws are passed in cities, states and nationally to increase the number of people who have to register guns, and the number of types of guns that are outlawed. The newest step is H.R. 2038.


    This step-by-step process will not end until all non-criminals have their guns confiscated.


  • Hidden Agendas and Deceptive Titles:
    This is another common technique used by corrupt governments to get what they want.


    And, as always, the media is at the front of the massive deception. In this case the "titles" and "issues" presented to the public are vastly different from the intended purpose of the organization or issue.

    For example, there is an organization called:


    • "Office of Cancer Complementary and Alternative Medicine (OCCAM)," a noble sounding organization

    • which is part of the "National Cancer Institute (NCI)," another noble sounding organization

    • which is part of the "National Institutes of Health (NIH)," another noble sounding group

    • which is part of the "U.S. Department of Health and Human Services," certainly an organization of complete integrity.

    Wow, with all of these high sounding names, OCCAM must have a fabulous web site supporting and helping alternative health research.


    It is all a lie. OCCAM exists to suppress the truth about alternative medicine. It exists to lure people who contact the NCI away from the truth about alternative medicine. Its name implies it is pro-alternative medicine, but its actions are totally anti-alternative medicine.

    Such deception in titles are common in government, charities, ad nauseum.


    The "American Medical Association" has no interest in your health, it is effectively a labor union. The "American Cancer Society" has no interest in seeing people cured of cancer, it is interested in luring research money away from alternative medicine and in raising money for orthodox "research."


    And the list goes on and on.

Back to Contents


Chapter 11 - The Role of the FDA

The Claim There is "No Scientific Evidence" for Alternative Treatments
The budget for people doing serious research on alternative treatment plans is zero.


One reason for this is that the FDA will not give formal permission for anyone to do research on alternative treatments on live patients. In other words, the government cronies of the pharmaceutical industry do everything in their power to stop alternative treatment research. That way they can claim there is "no scientific evidence" for alternative treatments.

Because the FDA, NIH (National Institute of Health, a government agency) and NCI (a division of the NIH) refuse to do legitimate and honest research into alternative treatments, they are artificially manufacturing a situation where there is "no scientific evidence" for alternative treatments (according to their definition of "science"), and because there is "no scientific evidence" for alternative treatments, these agencies, along with the AMA, have legal power to suppress and harass alternative treatment practitioners, thus making sure there is "no scientific evidence."


It is a "self-fulfilling prophesy."

In other words, it is like Jim predicting John is going to die within 5 hours, and then Jim pulls out a gun and shoots John, thus fulfilling his own prophesy. The pharmaceutical industry's cronies claim there is "no scientific evidence" for natural treatments, then they do everything in their power to insure there is "no scientific evidence."

But that is not all. In a jury trial, one or two key witnesses is frequently enough "evidence" for a jury.


But with the FDA, NIH and NCI, the tens of thousands of witnesses who have been cured of cancer by alternative treatments are not allowed to "testify." Their testimony is not admitted as evidence. Nor are the hundreds of scientific studies on natural treatments for cancer.

The ultimate goal of the FDA, which they have achieved, is to only allow scientific evidence that comes from the pharmaceutical industry. Since the pharmaceutical industry does not research alternative treatments for cancer (because these treatments are not profitable enough), by limiting "research" to the pharmaceutical industry they have stopped any possibility that there will ever be any "scientific" evidence for alternative treatments for cancer.

On top of this, the pharmaceutical industry are the biggest scientific liars on earth.


Many, many of their studies have been shown to be fraudulent. On top of that the FDA has made the approval process so expensive, there is no way that any natural product manufacturer can afford to get a natural product approved.

There is absolutely nothing more important for our corrupt government agencies to accomplish (from the perspective of the pharmaceutical industry) than to insure there is "no scientific evidence" for alternative treatments. With this great lie in hand, everyone on the side of orthodox medicine has the tools they need to crush alternative medicine and perpetuate the great lie that there is no scientific evidence.


Ignoring the evidence and suppressing the truth about the scientific evidence of alternative treatments are to the conspiracy, what an engine is to a truck.

To be technical, the official job of the FDA and other "health" agencies of the U.S. Government (i.e. this is why they were created in the first place) is to protect the profits of the big pharmaceutical and chemical companies, which have had, and still have, enormous influence in the U.S. government. That is the typical job of all government agencies when they are created, each has a sector of the corporate world to protect, and each is created because of the influence of big corporations.

I will be more specific. A corporation has no police powers. The FDA was specifically created to give Big Pharma police powers. Whenever Big Pharma wants something, they simply go to one of their departments (the FDA in this case) and have the FDA "take care of it."

When they are not using their police powers for Big Pharma, their assigned task is to suppress all truth and all scientific evidence for alternative treatments for cancer, heart disease prevention, etc. etc.


Of course their real objective is masked behind the facade of pretending to be concerned about the health of the American people. No doubt many of the lower level employees of the FDA really are concerned about the health of the American people, but lower level employees have no influence with the top executives, who are the main beneficiaries of the pharmaceutical money pot.

The hypocrisy of the FDA, AMA, Big Pharma, etc. is unbelievable. They claim that they do not want patients to be exposed to alternative treatments for cancer on grounds of their great humanitarianism.


Is there no end to the hypocrisy and lies of the medical leaders, journalists, politicians and above all, pharmaceutical executives and key employees?


Apparently not.

My Challenge to the FDA
Let us suppose there were two groups of recently diagnosed cancer patients.


Each group has 1,000 patients. Each group is similar in terms of the age of the patient, the type of cancer, the stage at diagnosis, etc. No one in either group has had any cancer treatments, and no one is over 65 years old (because this is a ten year study). Finally, each person must have at least Stage III cancer at the time of diagnosis.

I challenge the medical establishment to a contest. I will put together a team of M.D.s, alternative cancer experts, etc. and we will treat one of the groups with alternative cancer treatments. Orthodox medicine will treat the other group with orthodox treatments that are commonly used by oncologists.


There is an understanding that the patients in the orthodox group are not allowed to take any natural substances for the treatment of their cancer (they can take well-advertised natural substances for the symptoms of chemotherapy, however).

In ten years, which group will have the most people still surviving? Our group will be guaranteed to have at least 80% still living, but probably over 90% will still be living. The other group will probably have less than 10% still living, and likely less than 5%.

The contest will be decided by 10-year survival rates, and will have absolutely nothing to do with symptoms (e.g. tumor shrinkage). The only decision criteria is what percentage of the patients are still breathing.

You would think that our diligent government agencies would welcome such a contest. Don't kid yourself. The NIH would never fund such a study. The FDA would never allow it on live patients. The AMA would yank the license of any M.D. that participated on our side.


Various governments would jail any other person on our team for,

"practicing medicine without a license."

In short, only Congress could legislate such a contest.


However, there are more Big Pharma lobbyists than their are congressmen and congresswomen.

The "excuse" of the FDA for not doing this study is their pretended concern for cancer patients. They would say that the alternative cancer treatments are "unproven."

Do you see the picture?


Organized medicine doesn't want anyone to know the truth about alternative treatments for cancer, because they are not profitable to them!! For example, there are more than a dozen nutrients in purple grapes, with their seeds and skin, that orthodox medicine admits selectively kill cancer cells. But they don't want any studies with purple grapes (as my article talks about them) or any other alternative treatment for cancer.

Ponder this carefully, there has never been, and will never be a legitimate side-by-side study between alternative treatments and orthodox treatments (where alternative treatment experts control the alternative patients). The one study that did that (Pauling and Cameron) was so distressing to orthodox medicine that they did three bogus studies at the Mayo Clinic (which regularly receives millions of dollars in cancer "research" money) to suppress the truth.

They do everything in their power to crush the evidence for alternative treatments for cancer, so they can say:

"there is no scientific evidence for alternative treatments."

The logic they present to the public is this:

"there is no scientific evidence for alternative treatments, so we will not allow any studies of alternative treatments, even though purple grapes contain more than a dozen nutrients that selectively kill cancer cells."

It is absolutely critical to the many billions of dollars in profits every year of orthodox medicine that there are no valid studies using alternative treatments for cancer.


The most important thing for our totally corrupt federal government is to protect the profits of the big corporations.

The Big Picture
Now let's suppose that I manufactured a pill that contained two dozen nutrients, all proven to selectively kill cancer cells, and that this pill cures cancer (in conjunction with a good cancer diet).


Consider this:

If I put anything on the bottle (i.e. the label) that stated these pills cured cancer, the totally corrupt Food and Drug Administration would shut me down for selling unapproved cancer treatments (chemotherapy is, of course, approved).

If I didn't put anything on the label about cancer, but put the information on my web site, the equally corrupt Federal Trade Commission (FTC) would shut me down for advertising unapproved cancer treatments. (Note: Actually, the FDA has the authority to enforce the key FTC laws.)

Thus, information about my product could not be put in any proximity to the product itself.

Now let's suppose that an M.D. recommended my product to a cancer patient. The totally corrupt American Medical Association would yank the license of the doctor for recommending "unproven" treatments.

Now let's suppose that an naturopath recommended my product to a cancer patient.


The totally corrupt American Medical Association could have the person arrested (in a sting operation) for,

"practicing medicine without a license."

Now let's suppose a person wrote a book on how to cure cancer, and it was a very viable treatment.


No one could touch him - right? I will tell you what happened in one instance. Someone was hired to plant explosives on his property, then the feds came in and arrested him (or the feds brought the explosives with them when they searched his property - I don't know which happened) for having illegal explosives on his property.

Someone should write a book on the more than 100 instances where the things I just mentioned really happened. Yes, the feds did shut down some real quacks. But the feds couldn't care less whether the person cures cancer or not, they will shut down everybody, even the people who do cure cancer. And yes, people have been murdered (e.g. an associate of Royal Rife, a laetrile doctor, to mention but two), labs have been burnt to the ground, etc.

Our own government has very cleverly blocked almost all forms of communication about alternative treatments for cancer, and it has all been done in total secrecy because the press has sold out to the highest bidder - Big Pharma.

Here is the really scary part. It doesn't matter whether the President is a Republican or a Democrat. It doesn't matter whether the House is controlled by the Republicans or the Democrats. It doesn't matter whether the Senate is controlled by the Republicans or the Democrats.


The suppression of the truth about cancer treatments continues in force.

L-Tryptophan and Prozac
While the major job of the FDA is to suppress all scientific evidence for alternative treatments for cancer and heart disease prevention, that is not all they do.


It is also their job to suppress the availability of alternative medicines. They are masters at that too.

Everyone is aware of Prozac and the many other drugs used and approved to treat depression and other mental illnesses. In the July, 2003 Reader's Digest (who else) there was an article on teenage depression and drugs like Prozac (this was not the only pro-orthodox article in this issue). The article originally appeared in Newsweek, yet another magazine loyal to their advertisers.

This article talks about the growing number of teenagers who are depressed. The solution? Of course it is to run to your doctor and get prescription drugs and/or therapy if there is even the slightest hint your child might be depressed. (Obviously, a suicidal child should see a professional who has the authority to protect them.)

The article, of course, doesn't talk about alternative treatments for teenage depression.

  • How about parents spending more time with their children?

  • How about parents talking to their children and actually listening to their children?

  • How about parents becoming friends with their children?

  • How about parents setting a better example for their children and teaching them by example not to worship popularity and money (e.g. not to watch TV)?

  • How about parents putting less pressure on their children "to succeed" in school and in life?

The article mentions stress as a cause, but makes no effort to explain how to reduce stress by using the family.

Then there are the food substances and additives that cause emotional disturbances, such as aspartame, Monosodium Glutamate, refined sugar, food dyes, etc. etc. Of course they didn't mention any of these things either because orthodox medicine treats symptoms, not causes. Newsweek and Reader's Digest want your children to get hooked on prescription drugs.

As it turns out, there are alternative medical treatments for depression. Foremost among these is L-Tryptophan, a critical amino acid the body cannot manufacture for itself.


Both L-Tryptophan and Prozac work with serotonin, a chemical that has to do with how we feel.

"Elevated levels of serotonin in the body often result in the relief of depression, as well as substantial reduction in pain sensitivity, anxiety and stress.


Prozac, as well as other new anti-depressant drugs such as Paxil and Zoloft, attempt to enhance levels of serotonin by working on whatever amounts of it already exist in the body (these drugs are known as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors).


None of these drugs, however, produce serotonin. In contrast, ingested L-Tryptophan acts to produce serotonin, even in individuals who generate little serotonin of their own.


The most effective way to elevate levels of serotonin would be to use a serotonin producer rather than a serotonin enhancer."
Dean Wolfe Manders, Ph.D. in

Thus it is clear that L-Tryptophan and Prozac are in competition with each other.


Prozac is a drug that fools the body and L-Typtophan is an amino acid that creates more serotonin. Prozac, and similar drugs, have been shown to have deadly side-effects. But I won't get into that.

So what is the FDA going to do? It is deadly Prozac versus harmless and far more effective L-Tryptophan.


This is what they did:

"In the fall of 1989, the FDA recalled L-Tryptophan, an amino acid nutritional supplement, stating that it caused a rare and deadly flu-like condition (Eosinophilia-Myalgia Syndrome - EMS). On March 22, 1990, the FDA banned the public sale dietary of L-Tryptophan completely. This ban continues today.

On March 26, 1990, Newsweek featured a lead article praising the virtues of the anti-depressant drug Prozac. Its multi-color cover displayed a floating, gigantic green and white capsule of Prozac with the caption: “Prozac: A Breakthrough Drug for Depression.”

The fact that the FDA ban of L-Tryptophan and the Newsweek Prozac cover story occurred within four days of each other went unnoticed by both the media and the public. Yet, to those who understand the effective properties of L-Tryptophan and Prozac, the concurrence seems “unbelievably coincidental.”


The link here is the brain neurotransmitter serotonin - a biochemical nerve signal conductor. The action of Prozac and L-Tryptophan are both involved with serotonin, but in totally different ways."

You need to understand that it takes far more than 4 days to get an issue of Time out the door.


Thus, Time magazine was working on the Prozac article weeks before the FDA issued their order. You should also understand that the FDA did not prove that L-Tryptophan was dangerous. They banned it because a drug company issued a contaminated batch of L-Tryptophan.

Normally, when a drug company issues a bad batch of a product, which is quite common, the FDA fines the company and may have some other punishment for the company. But the FDA does not ban the product! But in this case the FDA banned the harmless and useful product.


Its real crime? Competing with Big Pharma.

This "double standard" is standard operating procedure for the totally corrupt FDA.

Thus we have a situation where Congress has allowed for several decades for tobacco products to be manufactured and sold, which are known to kill hundreds of thousands of Americans every year, but at the same time Congress has allowed the FDA to ban L-Tryptophan.

"The public availability of L-Tryptophan is too important an issue only to be argued and shrouded within a scientific debate that remains, ultimately, mystifying to the vast majority of Americans. There are many obvious facts worthy of public attention, and public concern.


For example, consider the following:

  • On February 9, 1993, a United States government patent (#5185157) was issued to use L-Tryptophan to treat, and cure EMS, the very same deadly flu-like condition which prompted the FDA to take L-Tryptophan off the market in 1989.

  • Notwithstanding its public ban and import alert on L-Tryptophan, the FDA today allows Ajinomoto U.S.A. the right to import from Japan human-use L-Tryptophan. Distributed from the Ajinomoto plant in Raleigh, North Carolina, the L-Tryptophan is then sold to, and through, a network of compounding pharmacies across the United States. Purchased by individuals only under a physician's order, L-Tryptophan emerges as a new prescription drug in the serotonin marketplace; one hundred 500 mg capsules cost about $75 — approximately five times more than if they were sold as a dietary supplement.

  • Since the FDA holds the political mandate and power of a public regulatory agency established, ostensibly, to protect people from raw corporate interests in drug production and distribution, the actions of the FDA in concert with Ajinomoto U.S.A. are illuminating. By publicly banning L-Tryptophan from its dietary supplement status and price, while allowing L-Tryptophan to be sold as a high-priced prescription drug, the naked duplicity of FDA L-Tryptophan policy is revealed.

  • During and after the 1989 EMS outbreak, the FDA did not totally ban the use of L-Tryptophan in humans — then, as today, the FDA has granted the pharmaceutical industry the protected right to use L-Tryptophan in hospital settings. Manufactured by Abbott Laboratories, the amino acid injectable solutions Aminosyn and Aminosyn II contain as much as 200 mg of L-Tryptophan. (Moreover, L-Tryptophan has never been removed from baby food produced and sold within the United States.)

While the FDA has banned the public sale and use of safe, non-contaminated, dietary supplement L-Tryptophan for people, the United States Department of Agriculture still sanctions the legal sale and use of non-contaminated L-Tryptophan for animals.


Today, as in the past, feed grade L-Tryptophan continues to be used as a nutritional and bulk feed additive by the commercial hog and chicken farming industry. Additionally, L-Tryptophan is now available for use by veterinarians in caring for horses and pets. Outside of the United States, in countries such as Canada, the Netherlands, Germany, England, and others, L-Tryptophan is widely used.


Nowhere, have any serious or widespread health problems occurred."

Import Alerts
You may have noticed that L-Tryptophan was on an "import alert" list.


An import alert is a way for the FDA to suppress the importation of a natural substance that competes with Big Pharma. Imagine this: a critical amino acid is put on an import alert because a pharmaceutical company made a contaminated batch of it. Meanwhile, cigarettes are still legal and only require a warning label.

There have been import alerts issued for virtually every useful cancer supplement.


For example, here is a short list of potent alternative cancer treatments that have been found on import alerts:

  • Essiac Tea

  • 714-X or 714X

  • anything from Dr. Hans A. Nieper

  • immuno-augmentative therapy (IAT)

  • laetrile

  • shark cartilage

  • Dimethyl Sulfoxide (DMSO)

  • etc.

Two things you should know about import alerts.


As you might guess, the justification for these alerts is virtually always because there is "no scientific evidence" these treatments work. Are you surprised? But there is something else you need to know.


Anti-alternative organizations, such as quackwatch, use the import alerts as their evidence that a particular treatment doesn't work. In other words, the corruption of the FDA, and their lust for a piece of the pharmaceutical money pie, is used as evidence an alternative treatment plan doesn't work.


How is that for coming full circle?

Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC or simply: Codex)
What the FDA is to the U.S. government, Codex Alimentarius is to the United Nations.


If you know anything about the U.N. then it should come as no surprise to you that Codex is just as corrupt as the FDA, if not more so. I say that because of the way Codex is organized. Pharmaceutical company employees can and do sit on the key governing committees of Codex. Corruption in Europe and other countries is far more open than it is in America.

I quote from Dr. Rath, who has both cancer treatment and heart disease prevention protocols:

"Dr. Mathias Rath, one of the most vocal and credible of opponents to the CAC is, according to many, also among the leading American researchers in cardiovascular disease.


The German-born California resident was a co-worker of Nobel prize winner Dr. Linus Pauling. Dr. Pauling, for those requiring testimony from the most heavily credentialed of scientists, won two Nobel prizes and is the only scientist to have ever done so in different, unrelated categories.

Dr. Rath, addressing a conference on alternative medicine in Chemnitz, Germany, outlined the various dangers inherent in the Codex document. Among them are the commission's recommendations that vitamins and minerals be placed, along with herbs and "botanicals", in the category of controlled prescription substances.


The only purpose for this, Rath and others maintain, would be to provide a seemingly viable reason to raise the price of food supplements to prescription levels.


This, Rath also claims, stems from the pharmaceutical company's unrestrained greed for profit and the elimination of the public's easy access to effectual natural remedies that would "rob" the drug companies of exorbitant profits. As an example of this he cites his research into the simple use of vitamin C, in concert with other substances, for the virtual elimination of cardiovascular disease from test subjects.

Rath claims that after his clinically-controlled therapy produced astounding results in the reduction of cardiovascular disease and, subsequently being endorsed by Linus Pauling, the Roche Corporation, anticipating an increased demand for vitamin C, artificially elevated the price of its raw materials for production of that vitamin.


This action on the part of Roche, "the German Bayer Corporation and the U.S. firm Archer-Daniels-Midland (ADM)," resulted, Rath claims, in the formation of a cartel for the purpose of "criminal price fixing."


This claim is strongly substantiated by the U.S. government's subsequent prosecution of ADM for that very crime."

The U.S. Congress, who will sell-out to anyone walking by their office building with money in hand, passed a law that states that American sovereignty is irrelevant and that Codex should have control over what can and cannot be sold and how it is classified.


The FDA vehemently denies Codex has any authority over it, and the soap opera goes on and on.

It Gets Worse
The medical establishment loves it when someone on alternative treatments dies.


I remember looking at a web site owned by an orthodox medicine cancer clinic. It told the story of a person on hydrazine sulphate (one of the top 50), who died of liver complications. It is a typical example of only telling one side of the story.


For example, assuming the story is true (and there are significant reasons to believe it is not true):

  1. They didn't tell you how damaged the person's liver was before the person started alternative treatments. No alternative treatment can fix a liver destroyed by cancer and chemotherapy before the treatment even begins. (Note: Just because a person has liver cancer does NOT mean that the liver is damaged beyond repair.)

  2. They didn't tell you the dosage of hydrazine sulphate the patient used. It is well known that a person should not take a higher dose of hydrazine sulphate (H.S.) than advised (hopefully, the patient got good advice from their vendor). There are some treatment plans where "more is not better," and H.S. is one of them.

The fact of the matter is that H.S. has an incredible safety record when taken in recommended dosages (its safety record is far better than any chemotherapy drug).


But more importantly, why didn't this same web site talk about the nearly 33,000 people cured of cancer by Dr. Kelley. Why didn't they post testimonials of local people who were cured with natural means (e.g. Essiac Tea, the Raw Food diet, etc.).

But there is more to it than that. Why did this person die? Was it because the medical establishment suppressed important information about alternative treatments, and because of this, this person chose the wrong treatment plan for his situation? For example, if this person had advanced terminal cancer before he went on alternative treatments, hydrazine sulphate would have been a very poor choice for his situation.


If the medical community supported alternative treatments for cancer, someone could have told him that information.

The chances are, the main reason this person died is because good information about alternative treatments for cancer are suppressed by orthodox medicine. Did this clinic talk about that? Obviously not. It is simply part of the ongoing propaganda campaign to discredit alternative treatments to get money.

The FDA and the rest of the medical establishment has not only stopped you from knowing the truth about alternative treatments, they have also stopped you from knowing exact "cure rates" (alternative definition) for: specific types of cancer, for specific types of treatment plans, diagnosed at specific stages.


Furthermore, they have virtually stopped you from being able to be treated by a licensed medical doctor. Thus, if you want to use alternative treatments, you are probably going to have to treat and monitor yourself. Furthermore, you are going to have to pick a treatment plan yourself, without the benefit of a lot of good statistical information.

Thus, let me summarize what the job of the FDA, AMA, NIH, NCI, ACS, cancer research organizations, ad nauseum, is:

  1. Suppress any attempt by anyone to produce "scientific evidence" for alternative treatments for cancer

  2. Suppress the availability of natural products to patients

  3. Suppress the importation into the United States of natural products that treat cancer

  4. Suppress any useful statistical information about alternative treatments for cancer

But there is another way to summarize the job of the FDA, ad nauseum:

The job of the FDA is to suppress all information about alternative treatments so that people will not know that alternative treatments for cancer even exist.

But if they do find out alternative treatments exist, they won't know the truth about how good alternative treatments are. Or if they do try to use alternative treatments they will pick the wrong treatment protocol because the FDA suppresses any possible good statistical information about alternative treatments for cancer.

They have covered all of the bases quite well and they have a wide array of sophisticated "tools" to do their job. And it is our tax dollars that fund their protection of Big Pharma's profits.


A top executive of the FDA can expect to be a millionaire within three years of quitting the FDA.

Back to Contents

Chapter 12 - The FDA Versus Freedom of Speech

Recent FDA Court Losses
In spite of the dictatorial powers given the FDA by Congress to crush alternative medicine (technically the FDA works for Congress), in recent years the FDA has lost some critical court cases. It seems there are still a few tough judges willing to stand up to Big Brother.

There are two key problems the FDA has run into.

First, is the issue of scientific evidence. There is a growing number of long-term studies which yield high quality, published scientific evidence linking natural substances to health benefits. Natural health vendors have begun to put this information on their labels, literature and web sites. The FDA does not like that.

Linking truth to products is not acceptable to the FDA. They want the product and the truth to be on separate galaxies and they prefer that the truth be totally suppressed.

Second, is that problematic document that Congress routinely ignores called the Constitution. It seems our founding fathers were not paid-off by Big Pharma and they put a clause in the Constitution regarding "Freedom of Speech." In fact, it is the first amendment, so they must have worried that government would abuse freedom of speech once government got big and corrupt. They were right.

Of course for years the FDA has gotten around the freedom of speech issue by pretending to be concerned about the health of the American people. But with the new studies, it seems that there is now significant, high-quality scientific evidence that favors natural substances and some courts have noticed.

So put yourself in the shoes of the FDA and think for a moment. For decades you have successfully ignored the Constitution, but new scientific discoveries are coming out, and are being used in courts. Suddenly your facade of dignity is getting fairly large cracks in it. What are you going to do?

Before reading on, stop reading and ponder and think about how you would overcome this new obstacle (hint: come up with a really profound sounding slogan that has no meaning). Write down your answer...

Well, what did you come up with?

The FDA came up with the slogan:

"significant scientific agreement."

The concept of "significant scientific agreement" dates back to the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990 (NLEA), which was partly or completely written by the FDA.

What in the world is "significant scientific agreement?" The first time the FDA tried to use this new term in court, the court wanted to know what it meant (actually, only the appellate court wanted to know). The FDA had no answer and lost the case at the appellate level.

Since that time the FDA has spent a lot of time and money figuring out how to define the term "significant scientific agreement" so that it could be used in court to crush scientific evidence and crush freedom of speech.

Before getting into the nitty-gritty details, let's look at the big picture. What is the intent of the concept of significant scientific agreement? The intent is to give orthodox opinions more credibility than actual scientific studies.

In other words, the FDA wanted some way to negate actual published scientific studies. They cannot refute the statistical data, so they have attempted to use that old standby - orthodox opinions - to negate truth.

Let us think about orthodox opinions. First we must understand that Medical Doctors are trained in medical schools that are largely funded and historically totally controlled (both directly and indirectly) by the pharmaceutical industry.

Thus, anyone with an M.D. behind their name is guaranteed to have several characteristics:

  1. They know virtually nothing about nutrition

  2. They know nothing truthful about alternative treatments for cancer

  3. The are totally brainwashing into believing chemotherapy and radiation are actually good for a patient

  4. They hate alternative medicine because it cuts into their profits

  5. They think all alternative medicine is quackery

Couple this with massive conflicts of interest, such as the Mayo Clinic, and other cancer research organizations, receiving millions of dollars in funding for cancer "research," and you have the sum total of "orthodox opinion."

In other words, "orthodox opinion" is made up of people: who have massive conflicts of interest, who hate the way God does His chemistry (because it is not profitable), who have been brainwashed into believing God is a quack, who want alternative medicine crushed, and so on.

In short "orthodox opinion" is exactly what the FDA wants because its foundation is profits for the medical community. In other words, "significant scientific agreement," "orthodox opinion," and "pharmaceutical profits" all mean exactly the same thing.

Thus, by cleverly morphing the phrase "pharmaceutical profits" into the phrase "significant scientific agreement," the FDA is pitting pharmaceutical profits against scientific evidence.

The Court Case Dealing With "Significant Scientific Agreement"
The key court case in dealing with the concept of "significant scientific agreement" is the case of Pearson vs. Shalala (Pearson v. Shalala, 164 F.3d 650 (D.C. Cir. 1999), reh'g, en banc, denied, 172 F.3d 72 (D.C. Cir. 1999)).


Actually is was the Life Extension Foundation (LEF) vs. the FDA, but legally it is known as Pearson vs. Shalala.

I quote from the LEF website:

"Our challenge began when the government refused to allow claims we wished to make on dietary supplements, including such things as "Antioxidant vitamins may reduce the risk of certain cancers" and "Omega-3 fatty acids may reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease". These claims are backed up by scientific evidence, yet the FDA nixed them based on something called "significant scientific agreement".


There may be scientific evidence, they argued, but not everyone agrees. This so-called "significant scientific agreement" rule was purely a creation of the FDA, yet the agency could not, or would not, define it. What it boiled down to is the agency had created for itself a stone wall it could throw up at will.


Drug companies could claim that their products prevented X based on scientific evidence, but supplement manufacturers could not. We wanted to knock down this wall so that people could have access to information about vitamins and other supplements."

First, let's talk about the phrase:

"There may be scientific evidence, they argued, but not everyone agrees."

Have you ever heard such a ridiculous statement? Yes, I know that virtually all pharmaceutical research on cancer drugs is totally bogus. But yet it seems that "everyone agrees" with their bogus studies because they lead to profitable treatments.

"Everyone agrees" with the ridiculous and bogus studies that compare one toxic chemotherapy drug to another toxic chemotherapy drug.


"Everyone agrees" with the unproven (in fact disproven) theory that shrinking a tumor leads to the increase in life span of cancer patients. "Everyone agrees" that chemotherapy does more good than harm (which, of course, is a lie).

Who exactly is "everyone." Surprise, it is the orthodox medicine people who are under the total control of Big Pharma. Who else would the FDA quote?

But when natural substances are tested, suddenly "not everyone agrees."

  • How can someone disagree with a well-done, quality, honest scientific study?

  • How can they ignore overwhelming, repeatable, scientific statistics?

  • Do you see a pattern here?

I have done many experiments myself, and it is well-known that if you don't agree with something, do it yourself.


In other words, a good scientific experiment is verifiable and repeatable. You don't "disagree" with a quality, honest experiment that is verifiable and repeatable. Such an experiment is irrefutable.

So why is the FDA talking about "not everyone agrees?"


Perhaps they should have said:

"not everyone thinks it leads to more profitable techniques."

So, the LEF wanted to tell their customers about scientific experiments that were not profitable to orthodox medicine.


We see that the FDA was willing to accept scientific evidence if it benefited and profited the pharmaceutical industry, but when the scientific evidence benefited the public it was not allowed because orthodox medicine (i.e. the pharmaceutical industry) did not consider the scientific evidence to lead to more profits.

I continue the previous quote:

"We believe that consumers are perfectly capable of judging for themselves whether they want to take a dietary supplement as long as they have truthful information. Fortunately, the Court agreed with us and the FDA's "Father Knows Best" approach was soundly rejected by the Court which apparently found some of the agency's arguments about a person's ability to make their own decision ridiculous.


We got a laugh out of the Court's take on some of the FDA's arguments. In responding to the assertion that all claims lacking "significant scientific agreement" (we still don't know what that is) are misleading, the Court wrote:

'As best we understand the government, its first argument runs along the following lines: that health claims lacking 'significant scientific agreement' are inherently misleading because they have such an awesome impact on consumers as to make it virtually impossible for them to exercise any judgment at the point of sale.


It would be as if the consumers were asked to buy something while hypnotized, and therefore they are bound to be misled. We think this contention is almost frivolous.'"

Now things get complicated.


The issue here is whether a reasonable person should have the right to make their own health decisions or whether a totally corrupt Big Brother should make those decisions for them.

But therein lies the paradox. In order for a reasonable person to make a decision they must have information from the people on both sides of the argument. But the FDA does not allow people to hear both sides of the argument, thus how can Big Brother pronounce that it has proven that a reasonable person doesn't know how to think?

In order to make a decision, a person should have the right to the information from the people on both sides of the fence (where have you heard that before?). The concept of "both sides" of an issue is something the FDA is specifically commissioned by Congress and Big Pharma to crush.

The FDA tells people how good chemotherapy is by approving these drugs. Then the FDA tells people how bad natural medicine is by not approving these products. Thus people know what is good about chemotherapy (actually there is nothing good about chemotherapy) and what is bad about natural products. Somehow, this is not telling both sides of the story.

Thus, worrying that the American people might become healthy (and thus not need prescription drugs), and fearing that people are smart enough to come to a logical conclusion, the FDA has long decided that reasonable people should not be presented with both sides of the issue.

The Freedom of Speech Issue
In essence, this is where "Freedom of Speech" enters the picture.


Without freedom of speech Big Brother presents its side of all issues to the public and suppresses any conflicting opinions. "Free Speech" means that everyone gets to express their opinion, even if their opinions differ from those in government. In fact, the concept of "free speech" was specifically designed to allow those who disagree with government to speak without being persecuted.


Our founding fathers remembered what happened to their ancestors before they came to America.

But of course, the FDA thinks that the Constitution does not apply to them because they are trying to crush the opinions of those people who think God did not flunk his chemistry course. And, of course, when Big Brother crushes free speech it is supposedly in the "best interests" of the nation. Exactly who is supposed to decide what is in the "best interests" of the nation?


Our founding fathers specifically did not think that government should be the organization to decide what is in the "best interests" of the nation.

The "government" is made up of people who worship power, who worship money, who worship being able to do things without getting caught, and so on. These are exactly the people who should not be making decisions based on the "best interests" of the nation.

Of course the real reason all tyrants (like the FDA) crush free speech is because it is a threat to their tyranny. The FDA crushes free speech (i.e. the alternative viewpoint) because it is a threat to the profits of Big Pharma, and more importantly, a threat to the retirement benefits of FDA executives and a threat to the benefits the pharmaceutical industry provides the members of Congress.

Thus, it is in the best interests of the FDA to continue to pretend they care about human life, to continue to suppress the truth about alternative treatments, and above all, to continue to hide behind the corrupt skirts of the orthodox medical community.

"The welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants."
Albert Camus

I like these comments by Ralph Moss:

"In his classic On Liberty, John Stuart Mill wrote that,

"over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign."

In 1914, Judge Cardozo ruled that,

"every human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body..."

In 1987, the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed:

"We see no reason why a patient should not be allowed to make an informed decision to go outside currently approved medical methods in search of an unconventional treatment."

In a masterful review, Berkeley law professor Marjorie Shultz concluded:

"patient autonomy should be recognized and protected as a distinct legal interest.""

Thus, according to the constitution, the responsibility of the government should be to allow the presentations of both sides of an issue (e.g. the issue of cancer treatments).


Furthermore, they should be proactively enforcing the public's right to hear both sides of any health issue.

In other words, if the FDA were doing its constitutional job, it would be severely persecuting the media (e.g. T.V., radio, printed) for selling-out to Big Pharma and presenting only one side of the cancer treatment issue in the media.

Here is a quote from a legal journal:

"If a health claim lies in the gray area of science where connections between health and particular nutrients are unclear, legislation and regulation should favor the policy that the healthcare consumer should be provided with more, rather than less, information whenever possible, based on the theory that the individual is the appropriate determiner of his or her own best interest.


This theory is consistent with the model of communication in traditional medicine, fully inform the patient of all possible benefits, risks and uncertainties and then leave the final choice to him whenever possible."

In other words, informing the patient about his health options is required in orthodox medicine, but is forbidden in alternative medicine.

As the article states, the FDA should be requiring more information by alternative medicine vendors, not less.

Of course the real problem is not legal or theoretical, but political. The FDA has sold out to the same people the media has sold out to, and is part of the suppression of truth. Some people would call this a conspiracy, but many people don't believe in conspiracies (I guess they still believe the earth is flat).

The purpose of the first amendment is specifically to declare that the government does not have the right to favor one side of a critical issue and to suppress the other side from presenting their view. The amendment is specifically about suppression of free speech (i.e. suppression of a viewpoint).

In other words, the intent of the constitution was that government should not be allowed to define truth. If the government is allowed to define truth, then they are allowed to present only one side of the issue, the side they define as "truth."

A good example of this is the FDA Modernization Act of 1997 (FDAMA).


First, read a little about it:

"A provision in the FDA Modernization Act of 1997 (FDAMA) provided an additional process for manufacturers to use health claims if such claims are based on current, published, authoritative statements from certain federal scientific bodies.


These include only those "with official responsibility for public health protection or research relating to human nutrition" such as the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Academy of Sciences."

The list of acceptable scientific bodies is a "who's who" of scientific corruption. Did you notice something interesting about this paragraph? Only government controlled experiments are allowed to be used as scientific evidence!


Talk about blatant control of "truth."

The New Rules For Labels
Is it wrong for the government to make an honest determination and then crush all competing arguments?


While this might seem like a good thing, don't forget that government is not honest, but is corrupt and their decisions are generally based on money, power and profit, not on what is best for the public. For this reason, it is the intent of the constitution to limit the authority of a corrupt government.


An honest government needs no such restraints.

"When you get into politics, you find that all your worst nightmares about it turn out to be true, and the people who are attracted to large concentrations of power are precisely the ones who should be kept as far away from it as possible."
Ken Livingstone, Member of Parliament

When our Constitution was being debated, government was honest and many people did not see the need for the Bill of Rights.


Fortunately, Thomas Jefferson and others persuaded the majority that the government would not always be honest, and that the Bill of Rights was necessary.

As a good example of how "honest" our government is (and how much they really care about our health), consider the tobacco industry, a long-time financial friend of Congress. Several hundred thousand American's a year die because of tobacco products. Yet these products are legal. These products have not been banned. Their products only require a warning label put on them (which was probably requested by the tobacco industry to avoid lawsuits).


The tobacco industry is also allowed to add chemicals to the tobacco to make their products more addictive.

So why aren't some natural products allowed to be sold under the condition that they have warning labels (e.g. liquid laetrile)? There is no scientific evidence that laetrile is more dangerous than tobacco!! Yet laetrile is treated as if it was more deadly than tobacco because laetrile is not allowed to be sold even with a warning label!!


Get used to double-standards when thinking about our corrupt government.

At the same time this is going on, Big Brother wants to ban labels on nutritional products that notify people of published scientific experiments, the knowledge of which may save their life! Are you choking yet??

In other words, allow a label on a product that kills you, but ban a label on a product that may save your life. Sounds like profitable logic to the FDA.

That is what government corruption does.


And it is this corruption that is the target of the first amendment.

"The Court indicated in its decision that it is poised to allow disclaimers as a way of notifying consumers that not everyone in the scientific community agrees that, for example, antioxidant vitamins reduce the risk of cancer."
ibid - LEF

While the court's decision is a giant leap forward, the FDA is not about to give up so easily.


They are not about to allow disclaimers on labels for natural products that allow the companies to tell the whole truth on that same label. After all, the FDA has an important mission to perform for Congress and Big Pharma - crush the truth.

On September 1, 2003, new rules went into affect regarding the labeling of nutritional supplements. I don't have enough information yet about how these rules will be implemented, so I do not have a specific comment. Based on what I have seen so far, I am not encouraged. It appears that a tobacco-type disclaimer will be required for most nutritional supplements, but more importantly, no additional products (which are currently forbidden to be sold) will be allowed to be sold.

In any case, I can say this, the FDA should be totally disbanded. It should be eliminated and replaced with a new organization where alternative medicine experts (who do not make their living as practitioners) should have a huge voice in the new organization.

The new organization should be designed specifically to make sure the news media presents both sides of all health issues. The media should be forced to give equal time to actual alternative medicine experts (who are not practitioners).

Furthermore, chemotherapy drugs, before they are approved, should be proven to extend life (not based on 5 years, but 10 or more years), compared to both refusal of treatment and alternative treatments, before they are approved.


Shrinking tumors, comparing one toxic drug to another, etc. should be eliminated as a criteria for approval.

There is an old saying in the Bible, Matthew 9:17:

"Neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved."

The corruption in the FDA cannot be fixed.


It is impossible to put a bicycle tire rubber patch on a 5 foot wide hole in the bottom of a ship. The FDA must be eliminated.


The top 500 executives in the FDA should not be allowed to even apply for a job in the new organization without substantive proof that they have had a long track-record of supporting alternative medicine research.

Another Application of Freedom of Speech
Let us suppose there are two people, Mike and Alan.


Mike goes to medical school and gets his M.D. Alan, on the other hand, after graduating from college, takes many additional classes on nutrition and herbal medicine. All in all, let us suppose that both of them read an equal number of books and spend an equal amount of time studying.

Rather than look at the degrees each holds, let us look at the books each has read. The medical community (i.e. AMA) has been given the legal authority to determine who can "practice medicine." Thus, because Mike read the "medical books," he can "practice medicine."


Likewise, because Alan read the "health books," he is not legally allowed to "practice medicine."

Thus, the medical establishment is essentially saying that the ability to "practice medicine" is based on what you read (and what your teacher tells you, which is the same thing). A person who reads the wrong set of books is not allowed to "practice medicine."

Remembering that "freedom of speech" is really "freedom of viewpoint," those with a viewpoint of orthodox medicine can "practice medicine" and those with a viewpoint of alternative medicine cannot "practice medicine." Thus, the government, once again, has taken sides and crushed the opposition.

In reality, the government has an obligation to force medical schools to teach alternative medicine along with orthodox medicine, and then let the doctors and/or patients decide when to use each type of medicine. But as might be expected, neither the doctor, nor the patient, has any valid information on which to make an informed decision.

The government should also allow non-medical doctors, who have substantial training, to practice medicine, since they have a differing viewpoint. Again, the patients should be fully informed of both kinds of medicine so they can make their own decision. Of course orthodox medicine knows that anyone with an IQ above that of a horse, who was fully informed, would choose alternative cancer treatments when first diagnosed.


That is not acceptable to those who profit from Big Pharma's bottomless money chest.

It should be up to the patient (and patients give referrals when their doctor heals them) to choose which type of doctor to go to, and which type of treatment they receive. As mentioned above, the patient should be given more information, not less.

Am I endorsing total chaos in the field of medicine? Let's think about that. When a person has cancer, and decides not to go on chemotherapy (by their own choice), where is he or she going to get medical advice? Most likely they are going to ask their friends if they know anything about alternative treatments for cancer. Most likely their friends know more than an M.D. about alternative treatments for cancer, but far too little to give any type of intelligent advice.


Thus, we already have chaos in medicine.

There is no simple solution to the problem. Things are so messed up right now there needs to be a total re-evaluation of cancer treatment credentials. The bottom line is that patients should have far more options, and far more information, in choosing a treatment plan for themselves. Congress, the FDA, AMA, etc. have done everything in their power to make sure that never happens.

In fact freedom of speech is all about options and information. Patients have neither, and neither do the medical doctors.

But the real problem goes much deeper than just licenses. Another key is good statistical information about different cancer treatments. This is exactly where the National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Cancer Institute (NCI) and the American Cancer Society (ACS), etc., enter the picture. Their key job is to insure all research money goes to orthodox medicine and that alternative medicine research is crushed.

For example, not even medical doctors have good statistical information about comparing the Brandt Grape Cure (applying discoveries made since she designed her treatment plan) "cure rate" to the chemotherapy "cure rate," for different types of cancer, etc. But even if they did have the information, they couldn't use it.

What I am trying to say is that even if herbalists, chiropractors, etc. started treating cancer patients legally, it wouldn't help much because the statistical information about cancer treatments is not available. That's why I say it is not totally a license issue.

I would not be as severely opposed to the current system if medical doctors had good access to valid and honest (with a big emphasis on the word: honest) statistical information and if they were allowed to practice alternative medicine, as an M.D., without getting thrown in jail and having their license revoked.

The corruption in Congress, the FDA, NIH, NCI, AMA and ACS, to name but a few, not only suppresses accurate, life-saving honest statistical information, but prohibit medical doctors from applying those statistics.

(Note: Yes, I am aware of Naturopaths (N.D.s), who are licensed to do some things in some states, and there are some really good naturopaths who know a lot about treating cancer, but I have some issues with the profession as a whole because they seem to be as interested as the medical establishment in creating chronic patients.)


Freedom of Choice in Medicine
Now that we have had a chance to talk about freedom of speech, we can talk about freedom of choice in medicine, which has been informally discussed above. But first, let's build a base from which to work.

Let us talk some more about Congress and tobacco. As mentioned above, Congress continues to protect the tobacco industry and continues to allow them to sell tobacco products to Americans legally.


Thus, people have "freedom of choice to smoke."

The rationale is that virtually everyone knows the dangers of cigarettes, etc., thus they should have the right to kill themselves and smoke if they wish. Thus, people have a legal right to slowly commit suicide by smoking and chewing tobacco, etc.

First of all, it is a big lie. A person cannot comprehend the dangers of smoking until they get emphysema or lung cancer, and then it is too late. If a person had to spend a month in a hospital, handcuffed to the hospital bed of someone dying of emphysema and lung cancer, then they would comprehend the dangers of smoking.


Likewise, because the tobacco industry adds addictive narcotics to tobacco, and many other chemicals, a person really doesn't have the choice to start and stop smoking at will.

In any case, Congress has, at the same time, consistently forbidden Americans from having the choice of letting their medical doctor work with them using alternative treatments. As if that weren't bad enough, the restriction is still in force even after orthodox treatments have totally failed and the patient has been sent home to die!


Congress has also consistently forbidden Americans to be treated for cancer by herbalists, nutritionists, etc., even after the patient is sent home to die.

Thus we come to the following conclusion:

  1. Congress allows you to choose which tobacco product you will use to slowly and painfully kill yourself

  2. Congress allows the tobacco industry to add many chemicals to their products which make their products more addictive

  3. If you get cancer, Congress forces you to take chemotherapy, which slowly and painfully kills you

  4. If you get cancer, Congress does not allow you to have your medical doctor treat you with alternative medicine, which is painless, builds your immune system and selectively kills cancer cells

  5. If you get cancer, Congress does not allow you to go to a non-medical doctor for medical treatments for cancer, even though it may save your life

  6. To make things even more absurd, even if you have been given up for dead by the medical community, you still do not have the legal choice to have your M.D. treat you with alternative medicine or go to a non-M.D. to be treated

  7. Congress has allowed the FDA, NIH and NCI to crush all valid statistical information about alternative treatments

  8. etc.

You might conclude from this that Congress wants you to die.


Or you might think that Congressmen are stupid. Actually they don't care if you live or die, and they are not stupid, but the list above shows a clear pattern - Congress makes decisions based on what is best for large corporations. The job of Congress is to protect the profits of large corporations and has nothing to do with protecting the health of American citizens.

The problem is not IQ, it never is, the problem is corruption. Congress has sold America's soul and kept the proceeds. The majority of members of Congress have gladly and quickly sold their integrity to the highest bidder.

President Abraham Lincoln said it best:

"We may congratulate ourselves that this cruel war [civil war] is nearing its end. It has cost a vast amount of treasure and blood ... It has indeed been a trying hour for the Republic; but I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country.


As a result of war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands, and the Republic is destroyed.


I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war. God grant that my suspicions may prove groundless."
President Abraham Lincoln
The passage appears in a letter from Lincoln to Col. William F. Elkins, Nov. 21, 1864, Hertz II, 954, in Archer H. Shaw, The Lincoln Encyclopedia (New York: Macmillan, 1950), p. 40

For Further Reading

  • Freedom of Informed Choice: FDA vs. Nutrient Supplements - Common Sense Press (800) 542-3230

  • "The Doctrine of Commercial Speech in First Amendment Jurisprudence" - Cato Institute Policy Analysis (Sept. 23, 1991)

  • "The FDA Knows Best... Or Does It? First Amendment Protection of Health Claims on Dietary Supplements: Pearson v. Shalala" - BYU Journal of Public Law, Volume 15

Back to Contents

Chapter 13 - Who Do You Believe - Follow The Money Trail

Who do you believe? Follow The Money Trail
When I was first researching cancer, I ran into both kinds of web sites, the sites controlled by orthodox medicine and the sites controlled by alternative medicine.


The quackwatch page (one of the orthodox sites) caused me to wonder whether all of this alternative medicine stuff was a bunch of baloney. Even though I am an expert at Machiavellian tactics and logic, I didn't know enough about the scientific studies they were referring to to figure out what was going on.

Then I came across the book Alive and Well, by Dr. Binzel. After reading the first two chapters of this book the picture became very clear. I had seen this same pattern before when dealing with physics and energy (although different government agencies were involved). I saw how the Department of Energy was suppressing discovery after discovery which would lead to very cheap energy costs (especially gasoline costs).


In the same way, the effort to fight alternative treatments for cancer is intentional, well organized, well funded and includes U.S. government agencies (e.g. FDA, NIH, NCI).

Most people in America would never consider taking alternative treatments for cancer.


This is because the media and orthodox medical establishment have total control over everything a typical person hears in their life. Unless a person is an expert at internet research (and quite frankly that wouldn't do any good unless they knew what to look for), or they happened to run into someone who knows what is going on (and if they did they would probably consider them to be whack-o because they have been so efficiently brainwashed), they will never know the truth about anything.

I should mention how the establishment crushed the Linus Pauling heart disease prevention program. They didn't say anything about it in the media, good or bad (i.e. they blacklisted it), and eventually the truth simply died out. That was all it took.


There are many "blacklisted" organizations and truths that are forbidden to be uttered by the media.

As a second example of blacklisting, when was the last time you heard a member of the "John Birch Society" talk for five minutes or more on the television (both Binzel and G. Edward Griffin belong or belonged to the JBS, and others)? Most people under 40 have never heard of the John Birch Society. I mention these things because these are just two of many examples of how potent blacklisting is, and more importantly, how overwhelming what you know is controlled totally by large, corrupt corporations that advertise.


The owners of virtually all television stations, large and small, are also large corporations. I should mention that General Electric, which owns NBC, manufactures medical equipment.


GE Medical Systems manufactures very expensive equipment used by both cancer doctors and heart disease doctors:

"In addition to its industrial holdings, General Electric owns NBC which controls the following assets:

  • 9 television stations including ones in,

    • New York

    • Los Angeles

    • Washington DC


  • 25% of more of the following cable channels:

    • CNBC

    • CourtTV

    • Bravo

    • MSNBC

    • A&E

    • the History Channel


  • Plus these key news programs:

    • The Today Show

    • Meet the Press

    • Dateline NBC

    • NBC Nightly News with Tom Brokaw"


Now do you understand why you have never hear anything positive about alternative treatments for cancer or alternative heart disease prevention programs?

It is all about money, not people.


Follow the pharmaceutical industry money trail and you will know with perfect certainty who is on their side. If someone that receives Big Pharma money says anything truthful about alternative medicine, the money dries up immediately.

This book can be summarized in several bullet points:

  • Since the 1910s medical progress in curing cancer has come to a virtual dead end. The reason: surgery, chemotherapy and radiation treatments are so, so profitable for pharmaceutical companies, chemical companies, petroleum companies, doctors, hospitals, medical equipment makers, charities, media companies, and many other industries.

  • The most important concept in chemotherapy is the concept of "remission." However, remission, response, tumor markers, etc. are terms that are meaningless. They are supposed to equate to "length of life since diagnosis," but in fact there is no correlation between being in remission and "length of life since diagnosis."

  • "Cure rates" are another deception tactic of orthodox medicine. Rather than use the logical concept of "length of life since diagnosis," orthodox medicine uses a meaningless statistic based on the percentage of people who live for 5 years between diagnosis and death. This statistic is easily manipulated to make orthodox treatments look more and more effective. But the only thing that really improves is their ability to deceive.

  • Chemotherapy drugs are evaluated by the FDA based on tumor size reduction and other irrelevant measurements, not on the basis of extending the life of the patient compared to a person not taking orthodox treatments. When they talk about extending a person's life, it is based on comparing one or more toxic poisons to another group of toxic poisons.

  • In most cases a person would live longer, and have a far higher quality of life, if they took no orthodox treatments for cancer.

  • Chemotherapy generally does far more harm to a patient than good. It destroys the immune system, making it more difficult for some alternative treatments to work, loses valuable time for the patient to take more effective treatments, causes people to die of complications directly and indirectly from chemotherapy, causes enormous pain and sickness, etc. Chemotherapy is virtually worthless, but it is very profitable.

  • The uselessness of surgery, chemotherapy and radiation is hidden behind a maze of very sophisticated false and misleading statistics, misleading definitions, meaningless concepts and many other techniques. Above all, there is a complete failure to compare chemotherapy to the statistics of people who refuse orthodox treatments and there is an intentional failure to meaningfully compare the Big 3 to alternative treatments.

  • Cancer research today is largely a fraud. If only a small percentage of research money were spent on studying alternative treatments, known to work, cancer would be a sad footnote in history books within 10 years. (Note: It is absolutely critical that alternative health zealots control that research and money or it will be just another scam.)

  • In comparing Vitamin C, and perhaps by taking a few other vitamins and minerals with Vitamin C, patients who avoid orthodox treatments would live several times longer than similar patients who took orthodox treatments. They would have a far better immune system, have far less pain (zero pain from the treatment), feel better and have a much higher quality of life. In other words, Vitamin C therapy is far superior to the Big 3.

  • Yet Vitamin C therapy, even with the Hoffer nutrients added, is not one of the "top 100" alternative treatments for cancer. It's cure rate is far too low to make that list.

  • Bogus scientific studies have been commissioned by the NIH specifically to discredit valid studies and the testimonies of tens of thousands of patients cured of cancer with alternative treatments.

  • The media are nothing but worthless whores. They sell-out to the highest bidder, which is always the corrupt pharmaceutical industry. Everything they say is aimed to please those that pay the most.

  • The media has many different techniques they routinely use to brainwash the general public. They lie, withhold information (by far their biggest tactic), deceive you, tell half-truths, and so on.

  • The job of the FDA, NIH and NCI is to suppress the truth about alternative treatments for cancer. Their number one job is to insure there is "no scientific evidence" for alternative treatments so that alternative treatments can be legally suppressed. They are corrupt to the core and should be disbanded.

  • The reason for the FDA, etc. suppressing the truth of alternative medicine is so they can continue to suppress the availability of alternative medicine substances and so the AMA can suppress the availability of patients to get alternative treatments from medical doctors.

  • Congress, whose job is to protect Americans and eliminate the corruption in Government, are largely inept and could easily be accused of intentionally "looking the other way" at what the FDA is doing, just as they have been "looking the other way" at what the tobacco industry has been doing for over 70 years.

  • Congress is suppose to be the watchdogs of the American people. But not only does Congress take bribes and let the enemy inside the fence, but Congress cuts holes in the fence and prohibits people from fixing the holes which they cut.

  • Not only does the media provide a lot of misinformation (and withholding of facts), but the internet also has an enormous amount of misinformation about alternative treatments. Universities frequently pass on this bogus information.

  • The scientific evidence for alternative treatments for cancer is overwhelmingly superior to the scientific treatments for orthodox medicine. For those who understand statistics, the difference is greater than 1,000 standard deviations in some comparisons. Alternative treatments are so good, many thousands of people cure their own cancer without any medical help.

  • The primary way the medical establishment tries to suppress the tens of thousands of testimonials of people cured of their cancer by alternative medicine (most of them were sent home to die by orthodox medicine before they started alternative treatments) is to talk about "spontaneous remission." The joint concepts of "spontaneous remission" and "psychological remission" are statistical nonsense and are nothing more than overt lies.

In short, American's have been sold a "Bill of Goods."


Alternative treatments work, but they are suppressed. Orthodox treatments don't work, but by using sophisticated statistics, clever definitions, etc. it appears to the public that they do work.

I have called this a "war." When people hear the term "war," they think of guns, tanks, jet airplanes and soldiers. They think about mindless tyrants shaking their fists on television.

But the war in medicine is very different. The tyrants in this war hide their real intentions. This is a "war" where the weapons are information.


Welcome to the 21st century, the century were America's most dangerous enemies are within.

"A nation can survive its fools and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and he carries his banners openly against the city. But the traitor moves among those within the gates freely, his sly whispers rustling through all alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself.


For the traitor appears no traitor; he speaks in the accents familiar to his victim, and he wears their face and their garments and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation; he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city; he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist.


A murderer is less to be feared. The traitor is the plague."
Marcus Tullius Cicero, Roman Orator - 106-43 B.C.

Back to Contents