Jumaat, 1 Mac 2013

Dr Kanematsu Sugiura



Debunking the Debunkers

Between the years 1975 and 1980 there were so many things happening that I am sure I do not remember all of them. Some of them were going on at the same time. These stories need to be told. While the exact chronological order of these stories may be incorrect, the stories are true.

Certainly one story that needs to be told is that of Dr. Kanematsu Sugiura. In 1975, Dr. Sugiura was, and had been for some years, one of the most respected cancer research scientists at Sloan-Kettering. In working with cancerous mice, Dr. Sugiura found that, when he used Laetrile on these mice, seventy-seven per cent of them did not develop a spread of their disease (metastatic carcinoma). He repeated this study over and over for two years. The results were always the same. Dr. Sugiura took his findings to his superiors at Sloan-Kettering, but his study was never published. Instead, Sloan-Kettering published the results of someone else who claimed that he had used Dr. Sugiura's protocol. This "someone else's" study showed that there were no beneficial effects from the use of Laetrile. Dr. Sugiura complained. He was fired. A book was written about all of this entitled The Anatomy of A Cover-up. This book has all the actual results of Dr. Sugiura's work. These results do, indeed, show the benefit of Laetrile. Dr. Sugiura stated in this book, "It is still my belief that Amygdalin cures metastases." Amygdalin is, of course, the scientific name for Laetrile.

A few months later, a cancer researcher at Mayo Clinic, in a private, informal conversation with a friend of mine, stated that it was very unlikely that any positive effects from the use of Laetrile would ever be published because "the powers above us want it that way."

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 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!

During this period, the FDA was sending speakers throughout the country to talk about the' "evils" of Laetrile. One such speaker was scheduled to appear on the campus of Macalester College in St. Paul, Minnesota in the spring of 1978. It just so happened that my son Rick was a sophomore at Macalester College at that time. Rick was very knowledgeable on the subject of Laetrile. When he found out when the talk was to be given, he called his older brother, Bill, who was a senior at the University of Wisconsin in LaCrosse. Bill was equally knowledgeable about Laetrile and agreed to come to Macalester for the speech. Rick had also recruited a friend who was a freshman at his school, Michelle Kleinrichard, who knew as much about the subject as the two of them.

The three of them went to the speech, but they did not sit together. Bill sat near the center just beyond half-way back in the auditorium. Rick sat toward the front on the right. Michelle sat toward the front on the left.

According to all three of them, the speaker left much to be desired. It was easy to see he had been given the speech to read, and that he had only a superficial knowledge of the subject. At the end of the speech he asked for questions. The first one on his feet was Bill (in the center). What happened was as follows:

Bill: "You said that you knew of a patient who had cancer and was treated with Laetrile. You said that the patient died, and this proved that Laetrile was worthless. Hubert Humphrey had cancer and was treated with chemotherapy. He died three months ago. Doesn't that prove that chemotherapy is worthless too? But, that's not my question. You also said that a little girl in New York took five Laetrile pills and died from cyanide poisoning. The parents now state that she took only one Laetrile pill. She was fine for three days. Then the doctors started treating her for cyanide poisoning. The next day she died. How do you explain this?"

Speaker: "I have no explanation for this."

Bill: "Another question."

Speaker: "No, we'll go to someone else."

With this, the speaker turned to another nice looking young man on his left. This other nice looking young man was Rick. (I have to say they were "nice looking" because I'm their father.) Rick pointed out that the speaker had stated that work done by Dr. Harold Manner, using Laetrile alone, had shown no positive results on cancerous mice. This, the speaker had said, was considered to be of great scientific value. Subsequent work done by Dr. Manner using Laetrile in combination with pancreatic enzymes and Vitamin A had shown excellent results. Yet, the speaker had indicated that these latter results were of no scientific value. Rick's question was why were these latter results ignored. The speaker could not answer that question.

The speaker then turned to his right. There, standing and smiling at him, was a pretty young lady. The speaker must have thought, "At last, a friendly face." The young lady was Michelle. Michelle was a member of the debate team at Macalester. The speaker was badly out-classed. She hit him with both barrels. She asked for a full explanation of why, if so many people die from chemotherapy, is chemotherapy so good? Why, if Laetrile makes people feel better, is Laetrile so bad? She asked who determined that Dr. Manner's recent results were not scientific. The poor speaker was in trouble. He hemmed and hawed, but never answered her questions. Finally, he said, "The question and answer period is over." He turned and rapidly left the stage. In five minutes Bill, Rick and Michelle had completely destroyed the credibility of the forty-five minute speech.

So, you ask, whatever became of those three free-thinking undergraduates who perpetrated this dastardly deed on this unsuspecting FDA speaker? (You probably weren't going to ask, but I'm going to tell you anyway!).

Bill got his law degree from Capital University in Columbus, Ohio. He worked for Congressman Lawrence P. McDonald as his legislative director until the KAL Flight 007 incident. Subsequently, he worked for Congressman A1 McCandliss as his legislative director. Later, he became the Republican counsel for the House Banking Committee. He has since gone to work for a private business.

Rick got his Ph.D. in Astronomy from the University of Texas. He is a professor of astronomy at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Rick was, incidentally, the first astronomer to view the moon around the planet Pluto.

The International Astronomical Society has named an asteroid (a small planet), Asteroid 2873 Binzel, in his honor. In 1982, Rick and Michelle were married.

Michelle, in addition to being a full-time housewife and a full-time mother of two children, has also managed to complete her Ph.D. in Business Management. When those two children become teenagers, Michelle is going to need all of her debating skills. I don't know anything about business management, but as the father of six children, I sure do know about debating. I wish I had taken it in college.

 


 


 


REMEMBERING DR. SUGIURA


From The Cancer Chronicles #3
© 1989 by Ralph W. Moss, Ph.D.

 



[Some readers have asked why I dedicated "Questioning Chemotherapy" to the memory of Kanematsu Sugiura. This will help explain it. --RWM.]



October 22 [1989] marked the tenth anniversary of the death of Dr. Kanematsu Sugiura. Born in Japan in 1892, Sugiura came to the United States as a boy. He lived with the Harriman family's physician and in 1912 became one of the first U.S. cancer researchers. From November 1, 1917 until his death over sixty years later Sugiura was associated with Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. Although he retired in 1962 he continued to do research every day at Sloan-Kettering's Walker Laboratory in Rye, New York.

Sugiura was not just a fine scientist but an outstanding human being. When he was given the unconventional drug laetrile for testing he did so with skill and honesty. When laetrile, contrary to all expectations, turned out to stop the spread of metastases in mice, Sugiura refused to alter his conclusions, despite pressure to do so.

"I write what I see," he said repeatedly. "Laetrile is not a cure for cancer, but a good palliative drug."

With great courage, he publicly supported the underground newspaper Second Opinion, when it went public with these results in 1977. "Your critical review of my positive results and negative results of three investigators at Sloan-Kettering Institute is very well done and accurate," he wrote. "Please accept my sincere congratulations."

In an age when some scientists turn first to the business page to see how their stocks are doing, Sugiura¹s simple honesty and unwavering dedication shine like a beacon.

###



Ralph W. Moss, Ph.D. is the author of eight books and three documentaries on cancer-related topics. He is an advisor on alternative cancer treatments to the National Institutes of Health, Columbia University, and the University of Texas. He researches and writes individualized "Healing Choices" reports for people with cancer. For information on Healing Choices, you
can send us an instant
message or contact:


Coordinator Anne Beattie
@ 144 St. John's Place,
Brooklyn, NY 11217
Phone 718-636-4433
Fax 718-636-0186


E-mail mail@ralphmoss.com
Web site:
http://www.ralphmoss.com

 

Scientific Cancer Facts


To base the whole argument of whether Laetrile works or not solely on laboratory experiments and their results is ludicrous.

Since cancer research and treatments run into the billions of dollars, the government agencies along with the major cancer research centers will always hide the truth.
To be able to cure cancer with something so "trivial and inexpensive" a treatment is tantamount to all Laetrile research by cancer research centers being sabotaged.
1 Tim 6:10 KJV
"For the love of money is the root of all evil…"
Jer 17:9 KJV
"The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?"
However, there are a few honest researchers with integrity who have not played the political cancer game. Money is not what motivates these people but the search for truth does.
Here are their names with a brief synopsis of
their experiments with Laetrile:
Dr. Ernest T. Krebs, Jr. is a biochemist and the researcher who first isolated Laetrile in apricot seeds and also discovered B-15 (pangamic acid, a vitamin which has been proven to be an important adjunctive therapy in the treatment of illnesses related to circulation).
He spent three years in the study of anatomy and medicine at Hahnemann Medical College and then changed his direction and became a doctor of biochemistry. He did undergraduate work at the University of Illinois between 1938-41. He did graduate work at the University of Mississippi and also at the University of California.
By 1950, he had isolated the nutritional factor in crystalline form and named it Laetrile. He tested it on animals to make sure that it was not toxic. He then had to prove that it was not toxic to humans. There was only one thing to do. He rolled up his sleeve and injected Laetrile into his own arm. As he predicted, there were no harmful or distressing side effects.
I find it interesting to note that Dr. Krebs was more than willing to test his theory about Laetrile on himself while cancer doctors and their personnel take great precautions to be sure they themselves are not exposed to the drugs they administer to their cancer victims...I mean patients.
Dr. Krebs authored many scientific papers in his lifetime. He was the recipient of numerous honors and doctorates both at home and abroad. He was the science director of the John Beard Memorial Foundation before his death in 1996.
Dr. Dean Burk, Director of the Cytochemistry Section of the federal government's National Cancer Institute reported that, in a series of tests on animal tissue, the (Laetrile) vitamin B-17 had no harmful effect on normal cells, but was deadly to a cancer cell.
In another series of tests, Dr. Burk reported that Laetrile was responsible for prolonging the life of cancerous rats eighty percent longer than those in the control group that were not inoculated.
Dr. Burk was one of the foremost cancer specialists in the world. He was the recipient of the Gerhard Domagk Award for Cancer Research, the Hillebrand Award of the American Chemical Society, and the Commander Knighthood of the Medical Order of Bethlehem (Rome) founded in 1459 by Pope Pius XI. He held a Ph.D. in biochemistry earned at the University of California.
He was a Fellow of the National Research Council at the University of London, of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Biology, and also Harvard. He was senior chemist at the National Cancer Institute, which he helped establish, and in 1946 became Director of the Cytochemistry Section.
He belonged to eleven scientific organizations, wrote three books relating to chemotherapy research in cancer, and was author or co-author of more than two hundred scientific papers in the field of cell chemistry. He is a biochemist. If Dr. Burk says that Laetrile works, I believe him!
For five years, between 1972 and 1977, Laetrile was meticulously tested at Sloan-Kettering under the direction of Dr. Kanematsu Sugiura.
Dr. Sugiura was the senior laboratory researcher at Sloan-Kettering with over 60 years experience. He had earned the highest respect for his knowledge and integrity. He was the perfect person to conduct experiments since his quest for truth blocked out anything else.
Dr. C. Chester Stock, the man in charge of Sloan-Kettering's laboratory-testing division wrote this about Dr. Sigiura, "Few, if any, names in cancer research are as widely known as Kanematsu Sugiura's… Possibly the high regard in which his work is held is best characterized by a comment made to me by a visiting investigator in cancer research from Russia."
"He said, 'When Dr. Sugiura publishes, we know we don't have to repeat the study, for we would obtain the same results he has reported.'" (Ralph Moss, The Cancer Syndrome, New York: Grove Press, 1980 pg. 258)
The official report about Laetrile
from Dr. Sigiura reads:
"The results clearly show that Amygdalin significantly inhibits the appearance of lung metastasis in mice bearing spontaneous mammary tumors and increases significantly the inhibition of the growth of the primary tumors… Laetrile also seemed to prevent slightly the appearance of new tumors… The improvement of health and appearance of the treated animals in comparison to controls is always a common observation… Dr. Sugiura has never observed complete regression of these tumors in all his cosmic experience with other chemotherapeautic agents." (A Summary of the Effect of Amygdalin Upon Spontaneous Mammary Tumors in Mice, Sloan-Kettering report, June 13, 1973.)
Dr. Sugiura's report was cause for great alarm at Sloan-Kettering. Remember, cancer is an industry bringing in over a billion dollars a year. This report would cause the house of cards to collapse. As would be expected then many more experiments were conducted by others who were not as honest as Dr. Sugiura.
At a press conference, Dr. Sugiura was asked suddenly by a reporter if he stuck to his report. Dr. Sugiura clearly and boldly stated, "I stick," even though Sloan-Kettering was trying to discredit everything that he did. To read about the many times that Sloan-Kettering tried to discredit their finest researcher, get the book "World Without Cancer" by G. Edward Griffin.
Now, even though we have proof from the laboratories, let us look at what is being discovered in prominent physicians' studies:
The following is taken from the book "World Without Cancer" by G. Edward Griffin, published by American Media, Westlake Village, CA
As early as 1974, there was at least twenty-six published papers written by well-known physicians who had used Laetrile in the treatment of their own patients and who have concluded that Laetrile is both safe and effective in the treatment of cancer.
Dr. Hans Nieper of West Germany, former Director of the Department of Medicine at the Silbersee Hospital in Hanover is a pioneer in the medical use of cobalt and is credited with developing the anti-cancer drug, cyclophosphamide. He is the originator of the concept of "electrolyte carriers" in the prevention of cardiac necrosis.
He was formerly the head of the Aschaffenburg Hospital Laboratory for chemical circulatory research. He is listed in "Who's Who" in World Science and has been the Director of the German Society for Medical Tumor Treatment. He is one of the world's most famous and respected cancer specialists.
During a visit to the U.S. in 1972, Dr. Nieper told news reporters, "After more than twenty years of such specialized work, I have found the nontoxic nitrilosides-that is Laetrile-far superior to any other known cancer treatment or preventative. In my opinion, it is the only existing possibility for the ultimate control of cancer."
N.R. Bouziane, M.D., from Canada is former Director of Research Laboratories at St. Jeanne d'Arc Hospital in Montreal and a member of the hospital's tumor board in charge of chemotherapy. He graduated magna cum laude in medicine from the University of Montreal. He also received a doctorate in science from the University of Montreal and St. Joseph's University, an affiliate of Oxford University in New Brunswick. He was a Fellow in chemistry and a Fellow in hematology and certified in clinical bacteriology, hematology, and biochemistry from the college. He also was Dean of the American Association of Bioanalysts.
After the first series of tests with Laetrile shortly after it was introduced, Dr. Bouziane reported:
"We always have a diagnosis based on histology [microscopic analysis of the tissue]. We have never undertaken a case without histological proof of cancer...
In our investigation, some terminal cases were so hopeless that they did not even receive what we consider the basic dose of thirty grams. Most cases, however, became ambulatory and some have in this short time resumed their normal activities on a maintenance dose." (Cancer News Journal, Jan./Apr. 1971, pg. 20)
Manuel Navarro, M.D., of the Philippines is former Professor of Medicine and Surgery at the University of Santo Tomas in Manila; an Associate Member of the National Research Council of the Philippines; a Fellow of the Philippine College of Physicians, the Philippine Society of Endocrinology and Metabolism; and a member of the Philippine Medical Association, the Philippine Cancer Society, and many other medical groups. He has been recognized internationally as a cancer researcher and has over one hundred major scientific papers to his credit, some of which have been read before the International Cancer Congress.
In 1971 Dr. Navarro wrote:
I ... have specialized in oncology [the study of tumors] for the past eighteen years. For the same number of years I have been using Laetrile--amygdalin in the treatment of my cancer patients. During this eighteen year period I have treated a total of over five hundred patients with Laetrile & amygdalin by various routes of administration, including the oral and the I.V. The majority of my patients receiving Laetrile--amygdalin have been in a terminal state when treatment with this material commenced.
It is my carefully considered clinical judgment, as a practicing oncologist and researcher in this field, that I have obtained most significant and encouraging results with the use of Laetrile & amygdalin in the treatment of terminal cancer patients, and that these results are comparable or superior to the results I have obtained with the use of the more toxic standard cytotoxic agents. (Letter from Dr. Navarro to Mr. Andrew McNaughton, The McNaughton Foundation, dated January 8, 1971, published in the Cancer News Journal, Jan./April, 1971, pp. 19 -- 20.)
Ernesto Contreras, M.D., of Mexico has for over three decades operated the Good Samaritan Cancer Clinic (now called the Oasis Hospital) in Tijuana. He is one of Mexico's most distinguished medical figures. He received postgraduate training at Harvard's Children's Hospital in Boston. He has served as Professor of Histology and Pathology at the Mexican Army Medical School and as the chief pathologist at the Army Hospital in Mexico City.
Dr. Contreras was introduced to Laetrile in 1963 by a terminal cancer patient from the United States who brought it to his attention and urged him to treat her with it. The woman recovered, and Dr. Contreras began extensive investigation of its properties and use. Since that time he has treated many thousands of cancer patients, most of whom are American citizens who have been denied the freedom to use Laetrile in their own country.
Dr. Contreras has summarized his experiences with vitamin
therapy as follows:
The palliative action [improving the comfort and well-being of the patient] is in about 60% of the cases. Frequently, enough to be significant, I see arrest of the disease or even regression in some of the very advanced cases. (Cancer News Journal, Jan./April, 1971, pp. 20. We must bear in mind that these are terminal patients--people who have been given up as hopeless by orthodox medicine. Fifteen percent recovery in that group is a most impressive accomplishment.)
Shigeaki Sakai is a prominent physician in Tokyo, Japan. In a paper published in the October 1963 Asian Medical journal, Dr. Sakai reported:
"Administered to cancer patients, Laetrile has proven to be quite free from any harmful side effects, and I would say that no anti-cancer drug could make a cancerous patient improve faster than Laetrile. It goes without saying that Laetrile controls cancer and is quite effective wherever it is located."
Professor Etore Guidetti, M.D., is of the University of Turin Medical School in Italy. Dr. Guidetti spoke before the Conference of the International Union Against Cancer held in Brazil in 1954.
He revealed how his use of Laetrile in terminal cancer patients had caused the destruction of a wide variety of tumors including those of the:
  • Uterus
  • Cervix
  • Rectum
  • Breast
"In some cases," he said, "one has been able to observe a group of fulminating and cauliflower-like neoplastic masses resolved very rapidly." He reported that, after giving Laetrile to patients with lung cancer, he had been "able to observe, with the aid of radiography, a regression of the neoplasm or the metastases."
After Guidetti's presentation, an American doctor rose in the audience and announced that Laetrile had been investigated in the United States and found to be worthless.
Dr. Guidetti replied, "I do not care what was determined in the United States. I am merely reporting what I saw in my own clinic." (Cancer News Journal, Jan./April 1971, p. 19)
Joseph H. Maisin, Sr., M.D., is of the University of Louvain in Belgium where he was Director of the Institute of Cancer. He also was President Emeritus of the International League Against Cancer which conducts the International Cancer Congress every four years.
And in the United States there are such respected names as:
  • Dr. Dean Burk of the National Cancer Institute.
  • Dr. John A. Morrone of the Jersey City Medical Center.
  • Dr. Ernst T. Krebs, Jr., who developed Laetrile.
  • Dr. John A. Richardson, the courageous San Francisco physician who challenged the government's right to prevent Laetrile from being used in the United States.
  • John A. Richardson, M.D., and Patricia Griffin, R.N., Laetrile Case Histories; The Richardson Cancer Clinic Experience published by Westlake Village, CA; American Media, 1977.
  • Dr. Philip E. Binzel, Jr., a physician in Washington Court House, Ohio, who has used Laetrile for over twenty years with outstanding success (Philip E. Binzel, M.D., Alive and Well: One Doctor's Experience with Nutrition in the Treatment of Cancer Patients, published by American Media, Westlake Village, CA, 1994) and many others from over twenty countries with equally impeccable credentials.
In my opinion, these results are more credible than something that can be worked up in a laboratory. The proof of whether Laetrile works or not is undisputed by eyewitness accounts from these highly respected physicians who have had many years of seeing people recover from their cancer by using Laetrile therapy.
Remember, laboratory experiments can be manipulated to produce any result that the researcher is looking for. Unscrupulous men have used these reports for their own gain and benefit, not for the cancer patient's.
Laetrile is a vitamin that cannot be patented. It is not worthy to be used in cancer treatment since it is not making the conglomorate pharmaceutical companies, research centers, etc., any money. To them, the only solution is drugs, even though they know without any doubt that these drugs do not work.
To prove it, let's take a look at what surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy really do to the cancer patient.
Surgery is the least harmful of the three:
Surgery can be life-saving if there are intestinal blockages that must be relieved to prevent death of secondary complications. There is also the psychological advantage of visually removing the tumor and offering the temporary comfort of hope.
However, the degree to which surgery is useful is the same degree to which the tumor is not malignant. The greater the proportion of cancer cells in the tumor, the less likely that surgery will help. The most malignant tumors are generally considered inoperable. It should also be considered what cutting into the tumor does, even for a biopsy.
First, there is trauma to the area. This triggers the healing process, which in turn, brings more trophoblast cells (the start of cancer) into being as a by-product of that process. (See chapter IV of the book "World Without Cancer" by G. Edward Griffin for more information on the trophoblast thesis of cancer.)
The second thing is that if not all the malignant tissue is removed, what remains may become encased in scar tissue from the surgery. Consequently, the cancer tends to become insulated from the action of the pancreatic enzymes which are essential for exposing trophoblast cells to the surveillant action of the white blood cells.
There is also no solid evidence that patients who submit to surgery have any greater life expectancy, on the average, than those who do not.
For more information regarding the many studies that have been done regarding surgery, see the book "World Without Cancer" by G. Edward Griffin.
The rationale behind X-ray therapy is the same as with surgery:
The objective is to remove the tumor, but to do so by burning it away rather than cutting it out. Here, also, it is primarily the non-cancer cell that is destroyed. The more malignant the tumor, the more resistant it is to radio therapy. If this were not so, then X-ray therapy would have a high degree of success-which, of course, it does not.
It also increases the likelihood of cancer developing in other parts of the body.
X-rays induce cancer because of at least two factors.
First, they do physical damage to the body which triggers the production of trophoblast cells as part of the healing process. Second, they weaken or destroy the production of white blood cells which constitutes the immunological defense mechanism, the body's front-line defense against cancer.
As with surgery, there is little or no solid evidence that radiation actually improves the patient's chances for survival.
For more information regarding the many studies that have been done regarding radiation therapy, see the book "World Without Cancer" by G. Edward Griffin.
We have now briefly viewed the miserable results obtained by orthodox surgery and radiation. However, the record of so-called anti-cancer drugs is even worse.
The primary reason for this is that most of them currently in use are highly poisonous, not just to cancer but to the rest of the body as well. Generally, they are more deadly to healthy tissue than they are to the malignant cell.
All substances can be toxic if taken in sufficient amounts. This is true of aspirin, sugar, Laetrile or even water. But, unlike those, the anti-cancer drugs are poisonous, not as a result of an overdose or as a side-effect but as a primary effect.
In other words, anti-cancerous drugs are deliberately poisonous. It is the desired effect. Now, these chemicals are selected because they are capable of differentiating between types of cells and, consequently, of poisoning some types more than others.
But don't jump to the conclusion that they differentiate between cancer and non-cancer cells, killing only the cancer cells, because they do not. The cellular poisons used in orthodox cancer therapy today cannot distinguish between cancer and non-cancer cells.
They act instead to differentiate between cells that are fast-growing and those that are slow-growing or not growing at all. Cells that are actively dividing are the targets.
Consequently, they kill, not only the cancer cells that are dividing, but also a multitude of normal cells all over the body that also are caught in the act of dividing. In the case of a cancer that is dividing at the same rate or even slower than normal cells, there isn't even a theoretical chance of success in killing the cancer cells before the poison kills the patient.
Poisoning the system is the objective of these drugs. The toxins catch the blood cells in the act of dividing and cause blood poisoning.
The gastrointestinal system is thrown into convulsions causing:
  • Nausea
  • Diarrhea
  • Loss of appetite
  • Cramps
  • Progressive weakness
Other Effects on the Body
  • Hair cells are fast growing, so the hair falls out during treatment.
  • Reproductive organs are affected causing sterility.
  • The brain becomes fatigued.
  • Eyesight and hearing are impaired.
  • Every conceivable function is disrupted with such agony for the patient that many of them elect to die of the cancer rather than to continue treatment.
I have already said elsewhere on this page that the personnel who administer these drugs to cancer patients take great precautions to be sure they themselves are not exposed to them. Because these drugs are so dangerous, the Chemotherapy Handbook lists sixteen OSHA safety procedures for medical personnel who work around these drugs.
The procedure for disposing of needles and other equipment used with these drugs is regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency under the category of "hazardous waste."
Yet, these same substances are injected directly into the bloodstream of hapless cancer patients supposedly to cure their cancer!
A report from the Southern Research Institute dated April 13, 1972, based upon research conducted for the National Cancer Institute, indicated that most of the accepted drugs in the American Cancer Society's "proven cures" category produced cancer in laboratory animals that previously had been healthy! Can you believe it?
These drugs are carcinogenic! How can poison and hazardous waste products cure anyone of anything?!!!!
So why do doctors use chemotherapy if it is toxic, an immunosuppressant, carcinogenic, and futile?
The answer is that they don't know what else to do. Doctors do not like to tell any patient that there is no hope. In his own mind he knows there is none, but he also knows that the patient does not want to hear that and will seek another physician who will continue some kind of treatment, no matter how useless or fatal it may be, so the doctor will continue to treat the patient himself.
In his book " The Wayward Cell, Cancer," Dr. Victor Richards made it clear that chemotherapy is used primarily just to keep the patient returning for treatment and to build his morale while he dies. But there is more! He said, "Nevertheless, chemotherapy serves an extremely valuable role in keeping patients oriented toward proper medical therapy, and prevents the feeling of being abandoned by the physician in patients with late and hopeless cancer. Judicious employment and screening of potentially useful drugs may also prevent the spread of cancer quackery." (Victor Richards, The Wayward Cell, Cancer; Its Origins, Nature, and Treatment; Berkeley, The University of California Press, 1972, pp. 215-16)
Heaven forbid that anyone should forsake the nauseating, pain-racking, cancer-spreading, admittedly ineffective "proven cures" for such "quackery" as Laetrile!
Here we have revealed the true goal of much of the so-called "educational" programs of orthodox medicine-psychologically to condition people to not try any other forms of therapy.
So let's sum up the four different options of dealing with cancer:
  • SURGERY: Least harmful of the conventional medical approach. Sometimes a life-saving, stop-gap measure. No evidence that patients who receive radical or extensive surgical options live any longer than those who receive the most conservative options, or for that matter, those who receive none at all. Believed to increase the likelihood of disseminating cancer to other locations. When dealing with internal tumors affecting reproductive or vital organs, the statistical rate of long-term survival is, on the average, 10-15%. After metastasis, the statistical chances for long-term survival are close to zero.
  • RADIOLOGY: Very harmful in many ways. Spreads the cancer and weakens the patient's resistance to other diseases. Serious and painful side-effects, including heart failure. No evidence that treated patients live any longer, on the average, than those not treated. Statistical rate of long-term survival after metastasis is close to zero.
  • CHEMOTHERAPY: Also spreads the cancer through weakening of immunological defense mechanism plus general toxicity. Leaves patient susceptible to other diseases and infections, often leading to death from these causes. Extremely serious side-effects. No evidence that treated patients live any longer, on the average, than untreated patients. Statistical rate of long-term survival after metastasis is close to zero.
  • VITAMIN THERAPY: Non-toxic. Side effects include increased appetite, weight gain, lowered blood pressure, increased hemoglobin and red-blood cell count. Eliminates or sharply reduces pain without narcotics. Builds up body's resistance to other diseases. Is a natural substance found in foods and is compatible with human biological experience. Destroys cancer cells while nourishing non-cancer cells. Considering that most patients begin vitamin therapy only after they have been cut, burned, or poisoned by orthodox treatments and have been told that there no longer is any hope, the numbe rof patients who have been brought back to normal health on a long-term survival basis (15%) is most encouraging. For those who turn to vitamin therapy first, the long-term survival rate is greater than 80%!
Wow, what a difference Laetrile makes !!
It is my opinion that everyone should read the book "World Without Cancer" by G. Edward Griffin for a clearer understanding of cancer, the way the human body gets it, and the politics that keep vitamin therapy outside the masses' grasp.
Even if you do not have cancer, you will benefit from this book. Cancer does not have to be feared anymore, just like we do not fear scurvy, rickets, beri-beri, etc. We have not been left defenseless on this earth, but we need to have ears to hear the truth and to apply the truth to our lives for life.
No human being loves you better than you do, no doctor, researcher, politician, etc. Only Yahweh loves you more. He has provided this information so we will be able to live whole and fruitful lives not enslaved to the political sources behind the scenes.

 

The Cancer Industry--Profits Before Lives http://www.encognitive.com/node/10755

by Ralph Moss, PhD

"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, PhD, www.cancerdecisions.com/beatcancer_frm.html

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.

The Cancer Industry: The Classic Expose on the Cancer Establishment, Updated Edition (Paperback)



Chapter Seven: Debunking the Debunkers


Between the years 1975 and 1980 there were so many things happening that I am sure I do not remember all of them. Some of them were going on at the same time. These stories need to be told. While the exact chronological order of these stories may be incorrect, the stories are true.

Certainly one story that needs to be told is that of Dr. Kanematsu Sugiura. In 1975, Dr. Sugiura was, and had been for some years, one of the most respected cancer research scientists at Sloan-Kettering. In working with cancerous mice, Dr. Sugiura found that, when he used Laetrile on these mice, seventy-seven per cent of them did not develop a spread of their disease (metastatic carcinoma). He repeated this study over and over for two years. The results were always the same. Dr. Sugiura took his findings to his superiors at Sloan-Kettering, but his study was never published. Instead, Sloan-Kettering published the results of someone else who claimed that he had used Dr. Sugiura's protocol. This "someone else's" study showed that there were no beneficial effects from the use of Laetrile. Dr. Sugiura complained. He was fired. A book was written about all of this entitled The Anatomy of A Cover-up. This book has all the actual results of Dr. Sugiura's work. These results do, indeed, show the benefit of Laetrile. Dr. Sugiura stated in this book, "It is still my belief that Amygdalin cures metastases." Amygdalin is, of course, the scientific name for Laetrile.

A few months later, a cancer researcher at Mayo Clinic, in a private, informal conversation with a friend of mine, stated that it was very unlikely that any positive effects from the use of Laetrile would ever be published because "the powers above us want it that way."

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 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!

During this period, the FDA was sending speakers throughout the country to talk about the' "evils" of Laetrile. One such speaker was scheduled to appear on the campus of Macalester College in St. Paul, Minnesota in the spring of 1978. It just so happened that my son Rick was a sophomore at Macalester College at that time. Rick was very knowledgeable on the subject of Laetrile. When he found out when the talk was to be given, he called his older brother, Bill, who was a senior at the University of Wisconsin in LaCrosse. Bill was equally knowledgeable about Laetrile and agreed to come to Macalester for the speech. Rick had also recruited a friend who was a freshman at his school, Michelle Kleinrichard, who knew as much about the subject as the two of them.

The three of them went to the speech, but they did not sit together. Bill sat near the center just beyond half-way back in the auditorium. Rick sat toward the front on the right. Michelle sat toward the front on the left.

According to all three of them, the speaker left much to be desired. It was easy to see he had been given the speech to read, and that he had only a superficial knowledge of the subject. At the end of the speech he asked for questions. The first one on his feet was Bill (in the center). What happened was as follows:

Bill: "You said that you knew of a patient who had cancer and was treated with Laetrile. You said that the patient died, and this proved that Laetrile was worthless. Hubert Humphrey had cancer and was treated with chemotherapy. He died three months ago. Doesn't that prove that chemotherapy is worthless too? But, that's not my question. You also said that a little girl in New York took five Laetrile pills and died from cyanide poisoning. The parents now state that she took only one Laetrile pill. She was fine for three days. Then the doctors started treating her for cyanide poisoning. The next day she died. How do you explain this?"

Speaker: "I have no explanation for this."

Bill: "Another question."

Speaker: "No, we'll go to someone else."

With this, the speaker turned to another nice looking young man on his left. This other nice looking young man was Rick. (I have to say they were "nice looking" because I'm their father.) Rick pointed out that the speaker had stated that work done by Dr. Harold Manner, using Laetrile alone, had shown no positive results on cancerous mice. This, the speaker had said, was considered to be of great scientific value. Subsequent work done by Dr. Manner using Laetrile in combination with pancreatic enzymes and Vitamin A had shown excellent results. Yet, the speaker had indicated that these latter results were of no scientific value. Rick's question was why were these latter results ignored. The speaker could not answer that question.

The speaker then turned to his right. There, standing and smiling at him, was a pretty young lady. The speaker must have thought, "At last, a friendly face." The young lady was Michelle. Michelle was a member of the debate team at Macalester. The speaker was badly out-classed. She hit him with both barrels. She asked for a full explanation of why, if so many people die from chemotherapy, is chemotherapy so good? Why, if Laetrile makes people feel better, is Laetrile so bad? She asked who determined that Dr. Manner's recent results were not scientific. The poor speaker was in trouble. He hemmed and hawed, but never answered her questions. Finally, he said, "The question and answer period is over." He turned and rapidly left the stage. In five minutes Bill, Rick and Michelle had completely destroyed the credibility of the forty-five minute speech.

So, you ask, whatever became of those three free-thinking undergraduates who perpetrated this dastardly deed on this unsuspecting FDA speaker? (You probably weren't going to ask, but I'm going to tell you anyway!).

Bill got his law degree from Capital University in Columbus, Ohio. He worked for Congressman Lawrence P. McDonald as his legislative director until the KAL Flight 007 incident. Subsequently, he worked for Congressman A1 McCandliss as his legislative director. Later, he became the Republican counsel for the House Banking Committee. He has since gone to work for a private business.

Rick got his Ph.D. in Astronomy from the University of Texas. He is a professor of astronomy at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Rick was, incidentally, the first astronomer to view the moon around the planet Pluto.

The International Astronomical Society has named an asteroid (a small planet), Asteroid 2873 Binzel, in his honor. In 1982, Rick and Michelle were married.

Michelle, in addition to being a full-time housewife and a full-time mother of two children, has also managed to complete her Ph.D. in Business Management. When those two children become teenagers, Michelle is going to need all of her debating skills. I don't know anything about business management, but as the father of six children, I sure do know about debating. I wish I had taken it in college.

 

Tiada ulasan:

Catat Komen

Nota: Hanya ahli blog ini sahaja yang boleh mencatat ulasan.