Health Notes

Which Direction are you going?
by Anusha Amen-Ra, N. C.

Life <<<<<<<<<<<< >>>>>>>>>>>> Death

  • table

Have you found yourself going in the wrong direction in life? To go in the right direction you will need a very good plan. Contact our office for a plan for how you can achieve your highest level of health. You too can become younger. Call to start your own self healing program today.

COW’S MILK AND DAIRY (approx 2650 words)
By Dave Rietz, WEBmaster www.notmilk.com

Yes… mother natures “perfect food” … for a calf!
[Until it’s weaned]

Everything you know about cow’s milk and dairy is probably part of a
Dairy industry MYTH! Cow’s milk is an unhealthy fluid from diseased
animals that has a wide range of dangerous and disease-causing
substances that have a cumulative negative effect on all who consume it.

Basic Contents:

*ALL* cow’s milk has 59 active hormones, scores of allergens, fat and
Cholesterol. Most cow’s milk has measurable quantities of herbicides,
pesticides, dioxin’s (up to 2,200 times the safe levels), up to 52
powerful antibiotics, blood, pus, feces, bacteria and viruses. (Cow’s
milk can have traces of anything the cow ate… including such things as
radioactive fallout from nuke testing … (the 50’s Strontium-90
problem).

The leading causes of death are:

http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/leadcaus.html (1998)

Rank Total Description

1 724,859 Heart Disease (think fats/cholesterol: meat,dairy)
2 541,532 Malignant Neoplasms (cancer: think toxins/milk/dairy)
2a 250,000 Medical system (drugs/etc. Think ignorance/incompetence)
3 158,448 Cerebro-vascular (think meat milk and dairy)
4 112,584 Bronchitis Emphysema Asthma (think toxins/milk/dairy)
5 97,835 Unintentional Inj & Adv. Effects
6 91,871 Pneumonia & Influenza (think weak immune systems and mucus)
7 64,751 Diabetes (think milk/dairy)
7a 40,000+ highway slaughter (men, women and children)
8 30,575 Suicide (think behavioral problems)
9 26,182 Nephritis (Bright’s disease: inflammation of the kidneys)
10 25,192 Liver Disease (think alcohol and other toxins)

(2a and 7a were added for completeness)

(note: Number 13 on the CDC list is -18,272 Homicide & Legal
Intervention-. It is curious that the CDC would readily list law
inforcement and homicides… and not the 250,000 deaths caused by
the medical system!)

**** Cancer “Fuel Cell”:

Of those 59 hormones one is a powerful GROWTH hormone called Insulin-
like Growth Factor ONE (IGF-1). By a freak of nature it is identical
between cows and humans. Consider this hormone to be a “fuel cell” for
any cancer… (the medical world says IGF-1 is a key factor in the rapid
growth and proliferation of breast, prostate and colon cancers, and we
suspect that most likely it will be found to promote ALL cancers).

IGF-1 is a normal part of ALL milk… the newborn is SUPPOSED to grow
quickly! What makes the 50% of obese American consumers think they
need MORE growth? Consumers don’t think anything about it because they
do not have a clue to the problem… nor do most of our doctors.

(See http://www.notmilk.com/igf1time.txt for a time line)

**** Quantity

Each bite of hard cheese has TEN TIMES whatever was in that sip of
milk… because it takes ten pounds of milk to make one pound of cheese.
Each bite of ice cream has 12 times … and every swipe of butter 21
times whatever is contained in the fat molecules in a sip of milk.

**** Monsanto and rbGH (Posilac)

Monsanto Chemical Co., maker of fine poisons such as DDT, agent
orange, Roundup and more… spent around half a billion dollars
inventing a shot to inject into cows… to force a cow to produce MORE
milk (for an already glutted taxpayer subsidized market).

Unfortunately, they created *FIVE* errors in their Frankenstein
Posilac (rbGH) shot that direly affected all test animals… but that
important report (Richard, Odaglia & Deslex, 1989) has been hidden from
everyone under Clinton’s Trade Secrets act. The Canadians read enough
of this report (before it was stolen) to reject rbGH for their country.

Monsanto’s Posilac creates additional IGF-1 in milk: up to 80% more.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) insists that IGF-1 is destroyed
in the stomach. If that were true, the FDA has proven that
breast feeding cannot work. Common sense says their “finding” is
ridiculous because this growth factor DOES make the baby calf grow
(rapidly, as mother natured intended). Visit the Dairy Education Board
at http://www.notmilk.com/deb/100399.html to review a DAIRY study that
confirms what the FDA has lied about this for years.

**** IGF-1 increases

This study involved two groups. One group consuming 12 ounces of
milk a day and the other consuming the USDA recommended allowance of 24
ounces (three cups). This report notes that the participants consuming
12 ounces more milk per day… HAD A 10% RISE IN IGF-1 IN THEIR BLOOD
SERUM! Now, consider that PER DAY, from ALL sources, the typical
milk/dairy consumer ingests approximately 39% of daily diet from
dairy… and that 10% increase becomes the “tip of the iceberg”. We
have NO idea of the non-dairy versus full-dairy difference but
considering cancer rates… it has to be significant.

**** Fat

Whole milk 49% of the calories are from fat.
“2%” milk 35% of the calories are from fat.
Cheddar cheese 74% of the calories are from fat.
Butter 100% of the calories are from fat.

Most folks suspect that butter is all fat. Most folks have no concept
of the just how much fat is in the rest of milk and dairy. Perhaps the
54% of Americans who are obese need to comprehend that milk, ice cream,
cheeses, yogurts, and all the OTHER products that use milk derivatives
(casein, whey, lactose, colostrum) are most likely a significant cause
for their weight and health problem.

**** Calcium

Calcium? Where do the COWS get calcium for their big bones? Yes…
from plants! The calcium they consume from plants has a large amount of
magnesium… necessary for the body to absorb and USE the calcium.

The calcium in cow’s milk is basically useless because it has
insufficient magnesium content (those nations with the highest amount of
milk/dairy consumption also have the highest rates of osteoporosis.
Proof? How about a controlled study of 78,000 nurses over a period of
12 years? OK?

Read more about it at:

http://www.notmilk.com/deb/030799.html PCRM article on the 78,000 nurse
study
http://www.notmilk.com/deb/092098.html CALCIUM AND BONE DISEASE
http://www.notmilk.com/badbones.html WHO GETS BONE DISEASE?
http://www.notmilk.com/bonehead.txt (most recent) CRIPPLING
BONEHEADS
http://www.notmilk.com/calcium/index.html Consolidated info

Cows milk has three times the calcium as does human breast milk. No
matter, neither are very usable because in order to be absorbed and used
their MUST be an equal quantity of MAGNESIUM (as exists in the greens
that cows eat to get all the calcium they need for their big bones).
Milk has only enough magnesium to absorb around 11% (33mg per cup) of
calcium.

Per the USDA 8 ounces (one cup) of cows milk contains:

Calcium, Ca mg 291.336
Magnesium, Mg mg 32.794

The USDA recommends 1200mg of calcium per day. The USDA recommended
three cups of milk a day only have 900mg of calcium. Some argue that only 1/3 of the magnesium is necessary. Mother nature seems to suggest it should be one to one. If the ratio for proper absorption were 1/3 magnesium to one calcium then no more than 300mg of that 900mg of calcium is usable. If, in fact, it is a one to one ratio… only 98.38mg of calcium is usable.

**** Protein

Milk can be thought of as “liquid meat” because of its high protein
content which, in concert with other proteins, may actually LEACH
calcium from the body. Countries that consume high protein diets (meat,
milk and dairy) have the highest rates of osteoporosis.

**** The wholesome protein myth:

MILK: 87% of milk is water. That makes it VERY expensive water.

Broken down into its basic groups… WHOLE MILK is:

WATER     FAT     CASEIN     OTHER     OTHER     PROTEIN

87%      3.25%      4%             1%           4.75

(note: that is 3.25% “milkfat” which includes the 87% water.)

80% of the protein in milk is Casein. Casein is a powerful binder… a polymer used to make plastics… and a glue that is better used to make sturdy furniture or hold beer bottle labels in place. It is in thousands of processed foods as a binder… as “something” Caseinate.

Casein is a powerful allergen… a histamine that creates lots of mucus. The only medicine in Olympic athlete Flo-Jo’s body was Benedryl, a power antihistamine she took to combat her last meal… pizza. See http://www.notmilk.com/deb/092198.html, http://www.notmilk.com/deb/111598.html and
http://www.notmilk.com/deb/112398.html for the whole story.

**** Bacteria

Cow’s milk is allowed to have feces in it. This is a major source for bacteria. Milk is typically pasteurized more than once before it gets to your table… each time for only 15 seconds at 162 degrees Fahrenheit.

To sanitize water one is told to boil it (212 degrees F) for several  minutes. That is a tremendous disparity, isn’t it!

Keep in mind that at room temperature the number of bacteria in milk will DOUBLE around every 20 minutes. No wonder milk turns rotten very quickly.

**** PUS

ONE cubic centimeter (cc) of commercial cow’s milk is allowed to have up to 750,000 Somatic cells (common name is “PUS”) and 20,000 live bacteria. before it is kept off the market.

That amounts to a whopping 20 million life squiggly bacteria and up to 750 MILLION pus cells per liter (bit more than a quart).

1 cup = 236.5882cc 177,441,150 pus cells ~ 4,731,600 bacteria
24 oz (3 glasses) 532,323,450 pus cells ~ 14,220,000 bacteria
(the “recommended” daily intake)

The EU and the Canadians allow for a less “tasty” 400,000,000 pus cells per liter.

Typically these levels are lower… but they COULD reach these levels and still get to YOUR table.

**** Cholesterol

The cholesterol content of those three glasses of milk is equal to what one would get from 53 slices of bacon. Do you know of any doctor who recommends that much bacon per day?

**** Kosher

Is cow’s milk and dairy “Kosher”? Consider this:

“D-3 always is derived from an animal. The sunlight reaction that converts 7-Dehydrocholesterol to vitamin D-3 is a ‘pure’ chemical reaction that occurs in your skin in certain cells.”

“The provitamin known as 7-Dehydrocholesterol is extracted and isolated from the skins of mammals and purified.” (Marian Herbert of the Vitamin D Workshop U of C)

Vitamin D-3 can come from four different sources:

Pig skin, sheep skin, raw fish liver, and pig brains. Most of the time, Vitamin D-3 is extracted from pig skin and sold to dairy processors.

Short answer to “is milk kosher” – probably not.

**** Other “stuff”:

Fat and cholesterol. Lots of it. Per the dairy influenced USDA “food pyramid” all milk, dairy and meats should represent no more than 8% of the diet. Statistically, by volume of sales in a nation of 281 million Americans, it works out to almost 40% of the diet for MILK AND
DAIRY… without the meat.

The milk of each of the over 4,700 mammals on earth is formulated specifically for that species. There are special Lactoferrins and Immunoglobulins (cow specific immunizing stuff) that in humans serve as allergens.

**** Leukemia

Sixty Percent of America’s dairy cows have Leukemia virus.

**** Diabetes

The protein Lactalbumin, has been identified as a key factor in Diabetes (and a major reason for NOT giving cows milk to infants).

**** Crohn’s Disease

Mycobacterium Paratuberculosis causes a bovine disease called “Johne’s.”

Cows diagnosed with Johne’s Disease have diarrhea, and heavy fecal shedding of bacteria. This bacteria becomes cultured in milk, and is not destroyed by pasteurization. Occasionally, the milk-borne bacteria will begin to grow in the human host, and Irritable Bowel Syndrome and
Crohn’s results.

**** Mad Cow Disease

There may also be prions (pronounced PREons) in the milk and meat. This is crystalline substance that acts like a virus… with an incubation period of from 5 to 30 years. The end result is MAD COW DISEASE!

**** Homogenization

Large fat molecules cannot get through the intestinal wall into the bloodstream. The cream no longer rises… because homogenization breaks up those large molecules into small ones that DO get into the bloodstream! This becomes an expressway for any fat-borne toxins (lead, dioxin’s, etc.) into your (otherwise) most protected organs.

**** Cumulative effects:

How does this impact humans who consume cow’s milk and dairy? Obesity (over 50% of Americans and rising), heart disease, cancer, allergies, digestive problems, Diabetes, Asthma, desensitization to antibiotics, behavioral problems, and the constant ingestion of dioxin’s, herbicides, pesticides (and anything else the cow eats that is not good for any critter), that winds up getting stored in HUMAN fat… is not healthy by any measure.

Those who resist believing the truth should understand that MOST of the world’s population CANNOT tolerate the lactose in cow’s milk (Up to 95% of the black population, around 53% of the Hispanics, etc.). So much for cow’s milk being “natures perfect food” for humans! Mother
nature knows better.

Common sense question: Where was this massive “milk is a must” before refrigeration, pasteurization and mass transportation? Back when cows gave only 1-4 pounds a day it was quickly made into BUTTER and cheese! Now that those same cows have been tweaked and shot-up with Posilac to produce up to 55 or more pounds of milk per day… almost all year long… it is suddenly (after many thousands of years) a daily “staple”. NOT!

**** SOME ANSWERED QUESTIONS:

Q: What is WHEY?

Whey results when the FAT and CASEIN are removed from milk. In making cheese, the curds become the cheese.

Whey’s main components are Bovine Serum Albumin and Lactalbumin. There are other hormones contained in Whey.

Q: What happens to the: 59 hormones scores of allergens, herbicides, pesticides, dioxin’s
up to 52 antibiotics when made into cheese?

A. Everything gets concentrated. when made into butter?

A. The allergens get lost: but the dioxin’s and pesticides and antibiotics remain in the fat. in the digestive system?

Steroid hormones survive, as do dioxin’s and antibiotics. In homogenized milk, protein hormones survive… depending upon the gastric pH, some protein hormones in cheese survive, but not all… eleven steroid hormones survive. and… what happens next?

Eventually, everything is broken down, but not before the chemical messengers (hormones) “deliver their message.”

Each of those hormones and proteins acts differently and has different rates of degradation. BOTTOM LINE… they all survive to a certain degree… and the effects are cumulative.

Other health trashing substances in cow’s milk:

Whey: Blood proteins. Bovine Serum Lactalbumen has been identified as a trigger for Diabetes and other autoimmune diseases.

Lactose: Two sugars. Glucose and Galactose. Galactose has been indentified as a trigger for Glaucoma. There are several columns that cover Lactose (covering Galactose and Galactosemia):

http://www.notmilk.com/deb/090599.txt Dr. Gordon: Heart Disease
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/notmilk/message/629 Lactose is dangerous
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/notmilk/message/453 Ben’s heart
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/notmilk/message/396 Femal Cancers
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/notmilk/message/378 Lactose intolerance

colostrum (cow’s first milk): Loaded with hormones, particularly IGF-I.

Answers courtesy of the NOTMILKMAN. (notmilkman@notmilk.com)

MILK: What a surprise!

(read what a NOTMILK guest book respondent said: http://www.notmilk.com/gbooktalk.txt)

*************

For more of the WHOLE truth… visit:

For all past newsletters visit with a wealth of information: http://www.notmilk.com/deb/column.html

and for the Daily Squirts of NOTMILK wisdom… http://www.notmilk.com/deb/squirts.html

Diabetics please read http://www.notmilk.com/deb/011099.html

Read up on “mad cow disease”? Visit
http://www.milkgate.com for what may well be mankind’s NEXT plague.

http://www.notmilk.com/milkinfo.txt my 2400 word overview (this file)
http://www.notmilk.com/wholemilk.txt USDA facts, and what they omitted
http://www.notmilk.com/52reasons.txt A reason for every week of the
year
http://www.notmilk.com/a-z.txt Extensive reasons by ailment/topic

Quote:

“It’s not natural for humans to drink cow’s milk. Humans milk is for humans. Cow’s milk is for calves. You have no more need of cow’s milk than you do rats milk, horses milk or elephant’s milk. Cow’s milk is a high fat fluid exquisitely designed to turn a 65 lb baby calf into a 400 lb cow. That’s what cow’s milk is for!” Dr Michael Klaper MD

***** PLEASE… PASS THIS INFO AROUND TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW! *****

***************************

Other bad news substances:

http://www.dorway.com Aspartame (Equal/Nutrasweet) This fake sweetener is not an effective diet aid and it was NEVER proven to be safe. Think 92 FDA complied symptoms (including death see http://www.dorway.com/badnews.html).

http://www.truthinlabeling.org MSG this flavor enhancer kissing-cousin mind-blower to Aspartame has 30 different names. Aspartame was used in the testing placebos BEFORE it was legal (see http://www.dorway.com/msg.txt).

Dave Rietz, dorietz@awod.com
5-30-2001

This file: http://www.notmilk.com/milkinfo.txt

World Without Cancer
by Edward G. Griffin

Excerpts

Let us take a look at the results and benefits of the so-called cures obtained through surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy.

Chemo Statistics

The following appeared in the Los Angeles Times on August 18, 1973, under the
heading: CANCER “CURE” LAETRILE

Helene Brown, FDA spokesperson, … said:

… there are now 10 kinds of cancer which can be cured or controlled by Chemotherapy – the treatment of disease by drugs.

Less than a month later, while speaking at an ACS national conference on cancer nursing, Mrs. Brown said flatly: “Present medical knowledge makes it possible to cure seventy percent of. cancers, if they are detected early.”

Spokesmen for the American Cancer Society never tire of perpetuating the myth of “proven cures.” But they seldom look quite so foolish in the eyes of those who know anything about true survival statistics as they do when they speak of cures by Chemotherapy.

We briefly have 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 quantity. 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, their poisonous nature is not tolerated merely as a necessary price to pay in order to achieve some desired effect, it is the desired effect.

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.

Theoretically, those Cancers that are dividing more rapidly than normal cells will be killed before the patient is, but it is nip and tuck all the way. 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 either event, poisoning the system is the objective of these drugs, and the resulting pain and illness often is a torment worse than the disease itself. The toxins catch the blood cells in the act of dividing and cause blood poisoning. The gastrointestinal system is thrown into convulsion causing nausea, diarrhea, loss of appetite, cramps, and progressive weakness. 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.

It is ironic that the personnel who administer these drugs to Cancer patients take great
precautions to be sure they themselves are not exposed to them. The Handbook of
Cancer Chemotherapy, a standard reference for medical personnel, offers this warning:

The potential risks involved in handling cytotoxic agents have become a concern for health care workers. The literature reports various symptoms such as eye, membrane, and skin irritation, as well as dizziness, nausea, and headache experienced by health care workers not using safe handling precautions. In addition, increased concerns regarding the mutagenesis
and teratogenesis [deformed babies] continue to be investigated. Many Chemotherapy agents, the Alkylating agents in particular, are known to be carcinogenic [Cancer -causing] in therapeutic doses. (Roland T. Skeel, M.D., and Neil A. Lachant, M.D., Handbook of Cancer Chemotherapy; Fourth Edition (New York: Little, Brown and Company, 1995), p.677.)

Because these drugs are so dangerous, the Chemotherapy Handbook lists sixteen OSHA safety procedures for medical personnel who work around them. They include wearing disposable masks and gowns, eye goggles, and double latex gloves. The procedure for disposing 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!

Most of these drugs are described as radiomimetic, which means they mimic or produce the same effect as radiation. Consequently, they also suppress the immune system, and that is one of the reasons they help spread the cancer to other areas. But whereas X-rays usually are directed at only one or two locations, these chemicals do their deadly work on every cell in the body As Dr. John Richardson has pointed out:

Both radiation therapy and attempts to “poison out” result in a profound hostile in-imunosuppression that greatly increases the susceptibility to metastasis. How irrational it would be to attempt to treat Cancer mmunologically and/or physiologically, and at the same time administer immunosuppressants in the form of radiation of any kind, Methotrexate, 5-FU, Cytoxin, or similarly useless and dangerous general cellular poisons. All of these modalities, as we know, have been used to depress the rejection phenomena associated with organ transplantation. The entire physiological objective in rational cancer therapy is to increase the
rejection phenomena. (Open letter to interested doctors, Nov., 1972; Griffin, Private Papers, op. cit.)

The view that toxic “anti-Cancer” drugs usually accomplish just the opposite of their intent is not restricted to the advocates of Laetrile. It is a fact of life (or shall we say death?) that has become widely acknowledged even by those who use these drugs. Dr. John Trelford, for instance, of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Ohio State University Hospital has said:

At the present time, Chemotherapy of gynecological tumors does not appear to have increased life expectancy except in sporadic cases…. The problem of blind Chemotherapy means not only a loss of the effect of the drugs, but also a lowering of the patient’s resistance to the cancer cells owing to the toxicity of these agents. (“A Discussion of the Results of
Chemotherapylogical Cancer and the Host’s Immune Response,” Sixth National Cancer Conference proceedings, op. cit.)

Dr. Trelford is not alone in his observation. 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 cure~~ category produced cancer in laboratory animals that previously had been healthy! (NCI research contract PH-43-68-.998. Information contained in letter from Dean Burk to Congressman Lou Frey, Jr., May 30,1972; Griffin, Private Papers, op. cit., p. 5.)

In a courageous letter to Dr. Frank Rauscher, his boss at the National Cancer Institute, Dr. Dean Burk condemned the Institute’s policy of continuing to endorse these drugs when everyone knew that they caused cancer. He argued:

Ironically, virtually all of the Chemotherapeutic anti-Cancer agents now approved by the Food and Drug Administration for use or testing in human cancer patients are (1) highly or variously toxic at applied dosages; (2) markedly immunosuppressive, that is, destructive of the patient’s
native resistance to a variety of diseases, including cancer; and (3) usually highly carcinogenic [Cancer causing]…. These now well established facts have been reported in numerous publications from the National Cancer Institute itself, as well as from throughout the United States and, indeed, the world. Furthermore, what has just been said of the FDA-approved
anti-Cancer Chemotherapeutic drugs is true, though perhaps less conspicuously, of radiological and surgical treatments of human cancer….

In your answer to my discussion on March 19, you readily acknowledged that the FDA-approved anti-cancer drugs were indeed toxic, immunosuppressive, and carcinogenic, as indicated. But then, even in the face of the evidence, including your own White House statement of May 5, 1972, all pointing to the pitifully small effectiveness of such drugs, you
went on to say quite paradoxically it seems to me, “I think the Cancer Chemotherapy program is one of the best program components that the NCI has ever had.”… One may ask, parenthetically, surely this does not speak well of the “other program areas?”…

Frankly, I fail to follow you here. I submit that a program and series of the FDA-approved compounds that yield only 5-10% “effectiveness” can scarcely be described as “excellent, ” the more so since it represents the total production of a thirty-year effort on the part of all of us in the Cancer therapy field. (Letter to Frank Rauscher, dated April 20, 1973; Griffin, Private Papers, op. cit.)

There is little evidence for long-term survival with Chemotherapy. Here is just a sampling of the negative verdict handed down by physicians, many of whom still continue to prescribe it:

Dr. B. Fisher, writing in the September 1968 issue of Annals of Surgery, stated:

As a result of its severe toxicity and its lack of therapeutic effect, further use of 5-FU as an adjuvant to breast surgery in the regimen employed is unwarranted. (“Surgical Adjuvant Chemotherapy in Cancer of the Breast: Results of A Decade of Cooperative Investigation,” Annals of Surgery, 168, No.3, Sept., 1968.)

Dr. Saul A. Rosenberg, Associate Professor of Medicine and Radiology at Stanford
University School of Medicine:

Worthwhile palliation is achieved in many patients. However, there will be the inevitable relapse of the malignant Lymphoma, and, either because of drug resistance or drug intolerance, the disease will recur, requiring modifications of the Chemotherapy program and eventually failure to control the disease process. (“The Indications for Chemotherapy in the Lymphomas,” Sixth National Cancer Conference proceedings, op. cit.)

Dr. Charles Moertal of the Mayo Clinic:

Our most effective regimens are fraught with risks and side-effects and practical problems; and after this price is paid by all the patients we have treated, only a small fraction are rewarded with a transient period of usually incomplete tumor regressions….

Our accepted and traditional curative efforts, therefore, yield a failure rate of 85%…. Some patients with gastrointestinal Cancer can have very long survival with no treatment whatsoever. (Speech made at the National Cancer Institute Clinical Center Auditorium, May 18, 1972.)

Dr. Robert D. Sullivan, Department of Cancer Research at the Lahey Clinic
Foundation:

There has been an enormous undertaking of cancer research to develop anti-cancer drugs for use in the management of neoplastic diseases in man. However, progress has been slow, and no chemical agents capable of inducing a general curative effect on disseminated forms of cancer have yet been developed. (“Ambulatory Arterial Infusion in the Treatment of Primary and Secondary Skin Cancer,” Sixth National Cancer Conference proceedings, op. cit.)

If it is true that Orthodox chemotherapy is (1) toxic, (2) immunosuppressant, (3) carcinogenic, and (4) futile, then why would doctors continue to use it? The answer is that they don’t know what else to do. Patients usually are not scheduled into Chemotherapy unless their condition seems so hopeless that the loss of life appears to be inevitable anyway. Some doctors refer to this stage, not as therapy, but experimentation, which, frankly, is a more honest description.

Another reason for using drugs in the treatment of cancer is that the doctor does not like to tell the patient 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. So he solves the problem by continuing the treatment 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 cancers. 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, cancerspreading, admittedly ineffective “proven cures” for such “quackery” as Laetrile!

Here, at last, is revealed the true goal of much of the so-called “educational” programs of orthodox medicine-psychologically to condition people not to try any other forms of therapy. That is why they perpetuate the myth of “proven cures.”

The American Cancer Society, in its Unproven Methods of Cancer Management,
stated:

When one realizes that 1,500,000 Americans are alive today because they went to their doctors in time, and that the proven treatments of radiation and surgery are responsible for these cures, he is less likely to take a chance with a questionable practitioner or an unproven treatment. (Unproven Methods of Cancer Management, op. cit., pp.17,18)

Summary

Before leaving the subject of cancer therapy and moving on to the field of Cancer research, let us clarify and summarize our findings so far. Here is a brief outline of the four optional modes of Cancer therapy:

SURGERY: Least harmful. Sometimes a life-saving, stop-gap meas-ure. 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.

Did you know that 30 years ago Dr Hardin B. Jones, Professor of Medical Physics & Physiology at Berkeley, found that the life expectancy of untreated cancer cases
appears to be FOUR TIMES LONGER than that of treated individuals?

1969 Science Writers Conference of the ACS

Chemotherapy is effective in only 2 to 4% of cancers—-Hodgkin’s disease, Acute
Lymphocytic Leukemia (ALL, childhood leukemia), Testicular cancer, and
Choriocarcinoma?

Ralph Moss interview 1995 here

There is no scientific evidence for chemotherapy being able to extend in any appreciable way the lives of patients suffering from the most common organic cancers, which accounts for 80% of all cancers?

Dr Ulrich Abel. 1990

Chemotherapy drugs are of benefit to at most 5% of cancer patients they are given to,
but are routinely given to 50% of patients?

John Cairns of Harvard in Scientific American

75 % of oncologists, in one survey, said if they had cancer they would not participate in
chemotherapy trials due to its “ineffectiveness and its unacceptable toxicity”?

Interview of Dr Manners
“(Tamoxifen) is a garbage drug that made it to the top of the scrap heap. It is DES in the making.”–Pierre Blais (Tamoxifen: A Major Medical Mistake? by Sherrill Sellman). http://www.netspace.net.au/~newdome/hh_tamoxifen.html

The trouble with tamoxifen by Dr. Zoltan P. Rona MD MSc
http://www.selene.com/healthlink/tamoxifen.html

Grouped together, the average cancer patient has a 50/50 chance of living another 5 years; which are the same odds he or she had in 1971?

With some cancers, notably liver, lung, pancreas, bone and advanced breast, our 5 year survival from traditional therapy alone is virtually the same as it was 30 years ago?

After $50 Billion spent on cancer research, the list of cancers responsive to chemotherapy is almost identical to what it was 25 years ago? (Questioning Chemotherapy by Ralph Moss, p81)

the War on Cancer is a failure with a death rate not lower but 6% higher in 1997 than 1970?