Finally, the CCSS delivered their verdict: the doctor involved was wrong; the lack of radiation adversely affected the patients. Litigation from the relatives was to be preferred to admitting that the dosage made no difference.
In the US, an anonymous National Cancer Institute scientist14 explained:
'Look, when you've got 10,000 radiologists and millions of dollars worth of radiation equipment, you give radiation treatments, even if study after study shows that a lot of it does more harm than good. What else are they going to do?
Like surgeons, they've been trained to cut: so they cut.'
One person who chose to have treatment with the radiation machine turned off altogether was the jockey Bob Champion. Convinced by the early detectors, in spite of feeling well, that he was, '...likely to die of cancer of the lymph gland,' he decided that he did not relish the thought of a treatment that, '...could have ruined his lungs.'15 - let alone the rest of him - and opted for drugs.
He eventually survived the treatment and the 'lymphoma'. His doctor, 'cancer specialist' Ann Barrett, declared:
'He is the only patient in my experience who has come through this disease and achieved such a high degree of physical fitness afterwards. His recovery is even more remarkable when you consider that he refused to have the conventional treatment.' !!!
The plight of the ever-increasing number of parents of child cancer victims facing 'radiotherapy' was well illustrated in October 1993:
'...after learning of the appalling side-effects of radiotherapy...her anxious mother has opted to take her to America for private treatment... "I've been told the radiotherapy will cause brain damage knocking forty points off her I.Q....Her growth would be stunted...she would need hormones to help her growth and sexual development. It is also likely she would be sterile"'16
Further delights include bone and nerve damage, leading to amputation of limbs, severe burns and, of course, death, at a future time, from cancer and leukaemia due to the highly carcinogenic, immuno-suppressive effects of the huge doses of radiation.
'Chemotherapy and radiotherapy will make the ancient method of drilling holes in a patient's head, to permit the escape of demons, look relatively advanced...the use of cobalt...effectively closes the door on cure.'17
The five year survival rates for the different onslaughts are: 11
Surgery - 22 percent
Radiotherapy -12 percent
Surgery/radiotherapy combined - 6 percent
Chemotherapy plus others - 2.5 percent
Chemotherapy alone - 1.6 percent
… none of which has stopped the cancer industry from carrying out the same procedures, day in, day out, for decades: with the same deadly, inevitable results.
Temporarily suppressing, with the scalpel, drug or radiation, the symptoms of cancer does nothing for the victim's chances of survival. Adding gross insult to injury, the treatment involves massive doses of carcinogens and super-poisons.
The patient is subject to a regime diametrically opposed to that which is needed for survival.
Cancer is an acceptable form of suicide for those who have lost the desire to live: this loss being a major factor in the development of the disease in the first place. The great tragedy and scandal is where the victim has a strong determination to live and fight but is then destroyed by the assault from the lethal, useless treatment and not by the cancer.
Early Detection
A boost to the early detection and cure hoax has been the improved methods used in picking up early cancer - real or imaginary. This has led to an increase in numbers of people lasting five years and being put in the cure statistics. Early stage patients are stronger and more likely to survive the assault; whereas, before the improved techniques, patients with more advanced disease succumbed to the disease/treatment before the five years were up.
On early detection and orthodox treatment, Prof. H.B. Jones, then the leading US cancer statistician, with over 30 years experience, stated, in 1975:
'It is utter nonsense to claim that catching cancer symptoms early enough will increase the patient's chances of survival: not one scientist or study has proven that in any way. 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 used in immediate life-threatening situation.'
One person who, before the reality hit him, may well have smiled at Jones' statement was US Senator Hubert Humphrey. Former vice-president Humphrey, a true believer - until it was too late - in the cancer boys and their early detection was told that he was suffering from bladder cancer. This was duly 'cured' with radiation. Later, in May 1976, the prognosis was that there was no reason for any further treatment. Six months later Humphrey was operated on for the removal of a bladder tumour. His surgeon, Willard Whitmore, declared: 'As far as we are concerned the Senator is cured.'
Whitmore added that '...to wipe out any microscopic colonies of cancer cells that may be hidden somewhere in the body' treatment with experimental chemotherapy - 'bottled death' as Humphrey later called it - would begin. Humphrey changed from an active middle-aged man into a feeble, ageing wreck and died within one year in full view of the media who all, apparently, thought he had died of cancer.
Any doubts about the brass neck of the Syndicate, in the face of such a spectacular public defeat, were dispelled the very next year by the publication of a book which stated that Humphrey was a '...famous beneficiary of modern radiation therapy' who had '...remained well for three years until the development of a new, more advanced cancer.'20
The use of very expensive body scanners to detect early lumps has been a favourite source of pride with the cancer cartel and their faithful fund-raisers. A letter from an MP stated: 'I have now received the enclosed reply from the...DHSS about the value of body scanners in treating cancer. As you will read, the government does acknowledge the value of body scanners but can give no statistical evidence of this.'21
This is fully in keeping with the tradition of orthodox medical practices. Estimates vary from 50 percent to over 85 percent as to the degree of these practices which are, at best, unproven or, at worst, lethal.
Cont ...