Hello,
There are times in our lives when we must stand up for
certain issues, rights or just pass on information
that we believe is crucial. For me, this is one of
those times. After about 14 months and 1500 some hours
of research, I know that at least a dozen very
effective cancer treatments have and are being
suppressed by the pharmaceutical/medical complex. My
answer as to Why?
is fairly long and is answered at my newly created
non-profit website. My article, "The
Cancer Racket" was published in "Clamor" magazines
Feb/Mar (re-titled, "Can You Trust Your Doctor"?)
issue this year. Feel free to email and circulate it
on the Internet, unchanged, non-commercially and with
attribute please.
Over ten thousand Americans die every week from
cancer, a medical vietnam every 6 weeks. Yet here we
are in the 21st century still being prescribed the
same three treatments that have failed for over 50
years; surgery, chemotherapy and radiation treatment.
Surgery is the most effective of the three but has
limitations and other disadvantages. Chemotherapy and
radiation are toxic, cause cancer, and wreck the
immune system. They cause very serious side-effects
and do far more harm than good for the vast majority
of cancer patients. But those are our main options, so
the oncologists say.
Please read this next story and try to put yourself in
the shoes of Ric and Paula Schiff. In 1993 their 4
year old daughter, Crystin, became ill with the
most deadly form of brain cancer. Crystin underwent
surgery at the University of California at San
Francisco Medical Center (UCSF). Crystin's prognosis
was bleak, she would be dead in a few months.
Chemotherapy and radiation treatment may extend her
life further, but the side-effects were appalling. Ric
and Paula were told there were no other treatment
options.
Crystin went through six months of hell. During this
time Ric and Paula found out about Dr. Burzynski's
non-toxic antineoplastons that have very few short
term side effects and are very effective against brain
cancer. The doctors at UCSF told them it was
worthless. Ric and Paula decided to go ahead anyway.
Incredibly, antineoplastons put Crystin into
remission. Although Crystin died in 1995, it was not
from cancer, but from brain damage as a result of
chemotherapy and radiation treatment.
Later Ric and Paula found out that a doctor at UCSF
had taken a close interest in a previous patients
success using antineoplastons . From 1989/1993 Dr.
Prados had sent Burzynski 14 lettters documenting the
case of Jeff Keller's brain cancer remission using
Burzynski's treatment. Yet this doctor told Ric and
Paula Schiff that antineoplastons were useless. See my
section "Three
Children Denied The Best Treatment" for more
information.
Virtually all children in America with brain cancer
must first be treated
with chemotherapy/radiation treatment. After the
pharmaceutical companies have extracted their blood
dollars the child may be allowed access to
antineoplastons. But it is usually too late because
the chemotherapy/radiation has destroyed the childs
immune system. Parents who try refusing orthodox
cancer treatments for their children will probably be
facing a court order and their child made a ward of
the State. We must have medical freedom of
choice.
Please help spread the word about the most egregious
scandal in the history of medicine. The
pharmaceutical/medical complex ban natural/cheap
cancer treatments so they can keep peddling their
highly lucrative chemotherapy and
radiation treatments. Meanwhile, our children,
grandparents, wives, husbands, family and friends keep
dying.
Thank you for your time.
Gavin
Phillips
If you have a website, please post a link to my
website
Exposing
the Cancer Indu$try
http://www.cancerinform.freewebsites.com/
About Burzynski and "antineoplastons":
http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/burzynski1.html The Antineoplaston Anomaly:
How a Drug Was Used for Decades in Thousands of
Patients, With No Safety, Efficacy Data
The Cancer Letter, Vol. 24, No. 36, Sept. 25, 1998.
http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/burzynski2.html About the grand conspiracy to suppress cancer cures:
Is There a Conspiracy to Suppress Cancer Cures?
Steven Novella, M.D.
Stephen Barrett, M.D.
http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/conspiracy.html "Some Notes on the Nature of Science"
http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/science.html The Millenium Project's Cancer 100 Challenge:
http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/cancer100.htm A simple explanation of a standard of proof, more basic than standard cliical testing, that quack cures just never seem to meet, unlike evidence-based medicine.
If you go to the Web site mentioned in the article, you'll see that our quackery fan is also on about a dubious cancer treatment called 714X.
About the history of 714X and its promoter:
http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/714x.html Every IMC you spam, quackboy, every time...
Quit spreading your corporate propaganda.. you aren't fooling us.
Since it's an odds-on bet that "anonymous" didn't take the time to read any of the articles I referenced before dismissing them as "corporate propaganda", i.e., "things that contradict my chosen gospel with facts", here's the full text of the Cancer 100 challenge.
I really hate to play fast and loose with someone else's copyright, but in this case I think I can claim the same justification participants in civil disobedience do.
Try reading it and asking yourself why the "alternative" cancer cure promoters of the world have never managed to follow three simple, logical steps:
1. Find a decent-sized sample (say 100) of patients PROVEN to be suffering from cancer.
2. Administer the complete treatment under test, and no other treatment (this is to ensure that the treatment being tested is in fact responsible for the results, without other variables to confuse the issue).
3. Demonstrate that the people treated are alive and free of cancer after a meaningful interval (five-year survival is a pretty standard measure in oncology).
That is a lot less rigorous than standard clinical testing, but if it were done it would be quite convincing. And yet cancer quacks like Burzynski have gone decades without managing it.
Why not? Could it be that it's just easier to keep claiming that you're the victim of a conspiracy than to subject your ideas to a realistic test? And is demanding that claims relating to the physical universe be supported by carefully designed, replicable testing "spreading corporate propaganda"?
Anyway, here's the Cancer 100 challenge, by Peter Bowditch, a rather better writer than myself:
Only 76 days to go until Nobel nominations close for the 2002 awards.
There are lots of people out there who claim to have cured cancer in patients. Some of the people making these claims are medical doctors who have records showing the detection and identification of the disease, the course of treatment (or treatments) taken, the results of those treatments, and long-term follow-up of the patients documenting the absence of the disease after several years. This is called "medicine" and is a form of science. A lot of other people claim to have cured cancer using unconventional means. Many of these people claim to have discovered or invented chemical preparations, machines, diets and other means of curing cancer. When challenged for evidence of their claims, they generally respond that scientists don't understand what they are doing, or that the drug companies want to suppress their ideas, or some other specious excuse about why they can't say how their cure works. Well, I'm going to make it easy for them by simply asking them to prove the effectiveness of what they do. The method is not important, only the results, and effectiveness is quite easy to assess.
I live near a large hospital which treats a lot of people with cancer. With a bit of effort and the right pieces of paper, I could get case histories of 100 patients which showed that:
1. A life-threatening form of cancer had been diagnosed (by scientific means, not just by looking or asking questions) before treatment started.
2. The patient had undergone some form of treatment (chemotherapy, radiation, surgery, combination)
3.The patient was alive and free of that cancer 5 years after the treatment had finished.
Now, I want alternative cancer curers to provide me with the same, paying particular attention to points 1 and 3. I don't want to hear about people who didn't have cancer after the treatment unless it can be proved that they had it before, and I don't want to hear about people who had conventional medical treatment as well as "alternative", and I don't want to hear about people who died 6 months after coming back broke from Tijuana, and I don't want to hear about how many hard bits there were in their stools after they were zapped, and I don't want to hear about how this isn't a way to prove the cure claims.
Simple, isn't it? 100 people who actually had cancer, then got treated by an alternative medicine practitioner (with no conventional treatment, of course), then were alive without that cancer 5 years later.
I can't offer any monetary award for this, but a Nobel Prize is waiting out there. I promise to support the nomination.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------