'Patients may die from secondary growths at any time from a few months to many years after the treatment. Only after a gap of as much as twenty one years does the risk of death from some other cause exceed the risk of death from the original disease.'7 Or from the original treatment.
On June 8 1990, at Chelmsford Crown Court, a 42-year old woman was awarded £155,000 damages. She had suffered seven years of cancer treatment. 'She spent 13 months in and out of cancer wards during which she made friends and saw them die. Her hair fell out and she suffered continual nausea during six spells of painful radiological and drug treatment...Surgeons opened her stomach and removed an ovary in an unsuccessful search for breast cancer. Only then was the shattered woman told it had been a mistake.' (Times 9.6.1990)
The woman, who lost her career and her marriage, had never believed the diagnosis but had allowed herself to be rail-roaded by the white-coated cancer gods. The precise number of people who have been mis-diagnosed and have then been killed by the onslaught or who have survived and have been put in the 'cure' statistics cannot be estimated. One anonymous cancer statistician commented: 'I wouldn't be surprised if they are curing a lot of leukaemia that never existed.'8
In 1940, according to Prof. Hardin B. Jones:19
'Through re-definition of terms, various questionable grades of malignancy were classed as 'cancer'. After that date, the proportion of cancer cures having 'normal' life-expectancy increased rapidly, corresponding to the fraction of questionable diagnosis included.'
The oldest prong of the lethal trident, cynically known as modern cancer therapy, is surgery. The notion being that the removal of a tumour cures the patient; ignoring the fact that cancer is a whole body, systemic, constitutional disease which eventually manifests a tumour; the location of the growth being due to individual constitutional factors, and the nature of the carcinogen. As for surgery, George Bernard Shaw was of the opinion that, 'The more appalling the mutilation, the more the mutilator is paid.' In medispeak, the more appalling the mutilation the more 'heroic' the surgery; it not being readily apparent whether the heroism is on the part of the patient or the surgeon who must know that one day he will have to stand before the Lords of Karma and explain his actions.
The hemi-corporectomy, the amputation of everything below the pelvis,9 was one of the bravest operations carried out by the heroic cutters but the greatest scalpel heroism was the 'total exenteration' or 'hollowing out'10 - the removal of the stomach, internal reproductive organs, pelvic floor and wall, pancreas, spleen, colon, rectum, bladder, ureter and part of the liver: far more fun than the nutritional approach to cancer.
Surgery is a massive shock to the system, uses carcinogenic anaesthesia and increases the risk of cancer in the scar tissue. It has a place only where the threat to life processes is immediate, as in digestive obstruction etc.
The routine removal of every malignant lump which is surrounded by the body with a defensive shield, is a death sentence.
Chemotherapy involves the use of extremely toxic petrochemical drugs in the hope, never realised, of killing the disease before killing the patient. The drugs are designed to kill all fast-growing cells, cancerous or not. All cells caught in the act of division are systematically poisoned. The effects include hair loss, violent nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, cramps, impotence, sterility, extreme pain, fatigue, immune-system destruction, cancer and death.
According to the government's own figures,11 around 2 percent of chemotherapy recipients are still alive after 5 years: the term 'alive' is used, here, in its literal sense: i.e. not yet clinically dead.
'Recently someone very dear to me, someone who can never be replaced, died a premature and totally unnecessary death. He had cancer and he was my father. Although there are safe, effective, natural treatments for this dreaded disease...my father allowed himself to be talked into having chemotherapy.
The side-effects of the drugs were horrendous and unspeakably cruel but he persevered with the treatment because he had faith and trust in his doctors and believed every word they told him. Clearly he was dying but he continued taking the awful treatments because he was repeatedly told that he was doing 'so well'. After all, the good doctors wouldn't lie to him, would they?...the truth about his real condition was not revealed to him until my mother accompanied him to the clinic for what was to be his last treatment...the prognosis was "very grim"...my father had less than a month to live... then, and only then, did my father allow us to take him elsewhere for non-toxic treatment...My husband took him to a cancer help centre where he received metabolic therapy...he was one hundred percent more comfortable and relatively free of pain...and he died a peaceful death.
He did not die of cancer, however, but of pneumonia, one of the chemotherapy's side-effects. Chemotherapy damages if not destroys the body's immune defence system...had my father been told that chemotherapy would never cure him...he would have allowed us to take him elsewhere...much sooner...I keep thinking of the Hippocratic oath, in particular, the first line, "First do no harm", and, "I will never do harm to anyone. To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug, nor give advice which may cause his death." I loved my dad very much and to lose him in this cruel horrible unnecessary manner is certainly the heartbreak of my life.'12
Whilst toxic chemotherapy has killed untold millions of patients, a systemic approach, using genuine, natural, anti-cancer agents is a valid, if not ideal, approach to cancer. 'Radiotherapy', however, is devoid of any rational basis in theory or practice.
After radium was discovered it was tried out in various situations. It was inevitable that 'some enterprising medical men started a fad in using it on cancer victims.13 The tumours were shrinking; cancer was being cured. This led to a price rise of 1,000 percent and the birth of a multi-billion dollar industry without an atom of science as its basis.
In late 1991 someone at the North Staffordshire Hospital, in Stoke, noticed that the settings on the tumour-burning machine were set too low. Various masterminds, including the local MP, went on air with dire warnings of the consequences to the 1,000 patients who had not received enough of the healing rays. An investigation was ordered.
The team undertaking the investigation faced a considerable problem. If they accepted the view of the doctor-in-charge, that the 'under-dosed' patients fared no worse than those given prescribed doses, they might have been asked why patients were, and are, given large doses of immuno-suppressive, carcinogenic radiation, when not necessary If they decided to preserve the virtue of radiation as a valid therapy by declaring that the UDs died quicker, they risked litigation from the relatives. If they found, as cynics strongly suspected, that the UDs lasted longer, they risked some trouble-maker wanting a further 1,000 patients treated with the radiation machine turned off altogether.
Cont ...