Tamoxifen is a drug which is related, structurally, to the infamous DES and is used in the treatment of breast cancer. It is now being promoted as a breast cancer preventative in the UK, despite serious reservations on both sides of the Atlantic. Women are being asked to take a tablet of the drug every day for five years with regular X-rays throughout the period. According to Professor Samuel S. Epstein of the School of Public Health, University of Illinois: 'As relatively few breast cancer patients have taken the drug for more than five years tamoxifen may be a much more potent human carcinogen than is currently recognised.'
Studies have suggested an increased risk of uterine cancer, 6.4 times higher for those women taking tamoxifen.27 The literature, sent out by the promoters states: 'Liver tumours develop in rats given large doses of tamoxifen, but not in mice so it is difficult to be sure about the effects in humans.'
This has not deterred some ladies from signing up; presumably, having reasoned that they are more like mice than rats.
'Drug maker may quit cancer trial - Healthy women taking part in a clinical trial to prevent breast cancer might have been put at a risk of developing other tumours...the drug may increase the risk of tumours in the womb, liver and bowel. The disclosure, on the eve of the launch...has led to the manufacturer threatening to pull out.'28
Hamish Cameron, head of medical affairs at Zeneca, the drug's makers, stated: 'Should the benefit/risk balance shift adversely, we reserve the right to withdraw that drug supply. If the evidence is quite clear I would hope the trialists themselves would realise that the game is up.'
Dr.Richard Bulbrook, one of the original proposers of the tamoxifen enterprise, voiced his concerns: 'Things have changed. There are now so many side-effects reported - there were 41 at the last count - and some of these are fatal.'
The USA abandoned the tamoxifen prevention scam on safety grounds: all in sharp contrast to Gordon McVie 'scientific director' of the 'Cancer Research Campaign': 'What we want to know is can we get more mileage out of tamoxifen, possibly by giving it for life.'
On the question of how orthodox cancer treatment 'saves' half the women with breast cancer, Dr Irwin Bross is quite unequivocal - half the women don't have breast cancer in the first place:
'If you are a woman who has been diagnosed as "early breast cancer"...there is one simple scientific fact that you need to know...more than half the time the pathologist is wrong - it is not actually breast cancer...What most women have is a tumour which, under a light microscope, looks like a cancer to a pathologist. Chances are this tumour lacks the ability to metastasize...the hallmark of a genuine cancer...
The world's first controlled trial of adjuvant therapies for breast cancer was centralised in my department...Dr Leslie Blumenson and I...made a surprising discovery. More than half of the patients...had tumours...that were more like benign lesions.
Our discovery was highly unpopular with the medical profession. Doctors could never afford to admit the scientific truth because the standard treatment in those days was radical mastectomy. Admitting the truth could lead to malpractice suits by women who had lost a breast because of an incorrect medical diagnosis. The furious doctors at the National Cancer Institute...took our highly successful breast cancer research program away from us...they eventually succeeded in suppressing our findings and blocking new publications...
Breast cancer and prostate cancer are statistical twins. When the functions of these two sexual organs diminish, the cells often become abnormal and look like cancer cells...The Journal of the American Medical Association reported amazingly high survival rates...of untreated early prostate cancer which showed 7 out of 8 tumours were not cancers.
There is no reason for women to panic when they hear "cancer"; panic makes them easy victims.'
The patient who is wrongly diagnosed and has no cancer, and is therefore more likely to survive the 'therapy', is recorded as a 'cancer cure'.
The patient who has cancer and is in a weak state is usually killed by the treatment and recorded as having 'died of cancer'.
Those who never had cancer in the first place are made far more likely to develop the disease, in the future, from the lethal carcinogenic, immuno-suppressive effects of the surgery, drugs and radiation.
Save the Children
According to the latest Morbidity Statistics from General Practice, UK childhood cancer incidence almost tripled in ten years. In the USA, '...of the 23 children admitted to the largest paediatric ward of the University of Minnesota hospitals in a single day, 18 had cancer.'25
A mother, writing in a women's magazine, said:
'By the time you read this my son Michael, who is just five, will be almost at the end of a year's course of treatment for cancer…To show for it Michael has a scar from one side of his body to the other, where doctors removed a huge malignant tumour and one of his kidneys. Radiotherapy at Bart's hospital left him limp like a rag doll with all the stuffing knocked out of him. Chemotherapy has made all of his hair fall out. The drugs…make him vomit for hours on end…his face is small and mostly pale: his eyes are dark and sullen and shadowed, the way a child's eyes should never be.'
Whilst it is unknown how long this child stood up to his tormentors, before being killed, it is certain that none of the medical inquisitors were hung, jailed for life, thrown into a padded cell or struck off any medical register.
It is also certain that anyone approaching the torturers with a suggestion that a regime of metabolic, herbal, nutritional…etc. treatment might effect a safe, effective approach to the illness would have been ignored or ridiculed. In the USA, Food and Drug administrator Robert Young admitted:
'In Boston a hospital tested a new NCI drug...on children. Their kidneys were lost within days...this was no big deal because new... NCI drugs are given out with literally no safeguards for people who will receive them.'
Having killed one child too many for litigatory safety, the cancer boys finally decided to tone down the assault. This led, inevitably, to longer survival times, which became 'great progress in childhood cancer treatment.' Whilst any reduction at all in the level of the drug/radiation lunacy is to be greatly welcomed, the idea that these longer survival times were due to anything other than less lethal treatments is merely wishful thinking.
The Autumn 1997 edition of the Leukaemia Research News reported the views of some LRF scientists:
'The intensive therapy given to children to ensure their survival (!)...can result in longer term side effects such as intellectual impairment, heart damage, growth disorders and even second cancers.'
When the second cancers - first cancers if the original leukaemia diagnosis was wrong - and the treatment, kill the patient, the original 'leukaemia cure' still stands in the statistics - cured and dead.
Cont ...