In 1971, President Richard Nixon declared War on Cancer. The chief weapon wielded in this new war was chemotherapy.
It is now 2004 and it is time to end this senseless war. The war is lost. It is a complete and utter failure with our weapon of choice killing little cancer with the hapless patient being the chief casualty in this war.
In 1972, according to the American Cancer Society’s own figures, 33% of cancers had a five year survival rate. We should also point out that at that same time 33% of cancers went away on their own.
Today, according to the ACS, the five year survival rate for cancer has risen to 40%.
However, what they do not tell you is that
The war is lost. To the victors go the spoils. Somewhere there are yachts and million dollar homes purchased with the eighty plus billion spent on this war, but there is no cure.
According to Frank Wiewel, there are doctors today who make 1.5 million dollars just selling chemotherapy.
In 1988, Cecil’s Textbook of Medicine listed the most common cancers that responded well to chemotherapy:
Type of Cancer
Percent 5 Year Disease-free Survival
Choriocarcinoma (low-risk patients)
Burkitt’s Lymphoma (Stage I)
Acute lymphocytic leukemia
Hodgkin’s disease (stage III and IV)
Diffuse histiocytic lymphoma
Nodular mixed lymphoma
Testicular carcinoma (stage II-III)
Childhood sarcomas (w/ radiation & surgery)
Since then, some of these figures have improved. In fact, seminoma (testicular carcinoma originally, but now cancer of the seminal glands, hence seminoma), the one that Lance Armstrong beat, has an estimated 95% survival rate. Lance Armstrong is the greatest promotion the Pharmaceutical Industry has ever enjoyed.
However, and this is an important HOWEVER, Dr Ulrich Abel, who poured over thousands and thousands of cancer studies, published his shocking report in 1990 stating quite succinctly that chemotherapy has done nothing for 80% of all cancers; that 80% of chemotherapy administered was absolutely worthless.
Ulrich Abel was a German epidemiologist and biostatistician. In the eighties, he contacted over 350 medical centers around the world requesting them to furnish him with anything they had published on the subject of cancer. By the time he published his report and subsequent book (Chemotherapy of Advanced Epithelial Cancer, Stuttgart: Hippokrates Verlag GmbH, 1990) he knew more about chemotherapy than any person in existence.
His report, later reviewed by the German Magazine Der Spiegel in 1990 and summarized by Ralph Moss in an article entitled “Chemo’s ‘Berlin Wall’ Crumbles” (Cancer Chronicles, Dec 1990, p.4), described chemotherapy as a “scientific wasteland” and that neither physician nor patient were willing to give it up even though there was no scientific evidence that it worked. [Note: we have just published a translation of Able’s article in Der Spiegel here: A Dull Weapon.]
Success of most chemotherapies is appalling…There is no scientific evidence for its ability to extend in any appreciable way the lives of patients suffering from the most common organic cancer… Chemotherapy for malignancies too advanced for surgery, which accounts for 80% of all cancers, is a scientific wasteland [Dr Uhlrich Abel, Chemotherapy of Advanced Epithelial Cancer, Stuttgart, 1990]
Dr Abel was immediately attacked by the cancer industry. They could not attack his science, so they attacked his character. This is a common tactic when the accused has science on his/her side.
If a person dies during a chemotherapy study, that information is NOT included in the write up because the patient did NOT complete the study.
Here is an excerpt from an article at this site called The History of Medicine (1800 – 1850):
In France, a study on cancer, begun in 1843, had just been published. A physician of the French Academy of Science, Dr Leroy d’Etoilles, gathered together as many statistics as possible at that time from some 170 practitioners who had treated cancer. The reason for the study was to compare survival rates of those who elected to undergo the standard treatments for cancer against those who refused these treatments. According to Dr Naiman in her book Cancer Salves, the standard treatments consisted of surgery, caustics “such as nitric acid; sulfuric acid mixed with saffron; poisonous minerals such as lead, mercury, or arsenic nitrate; or alkaline caustics such as sulfate of zinc. Copper sulfate [mixed with borax], quicklime, or potassium permanganate were also used, evidently with mixed success.”
The conclusion of the study showed that those who avoided traditional cancer therapies outlived those who underwent them. Did this stop anyone from practicing these therapies? Perhaps, but for the most part, these treatment protocols continued on till the advent of Radium therapy that proved to be even more deadly than any previous protocol, but was highly recommended because it was a great money maker.
History, we are told, often repeats itself. A study presented to the American Cancer Society in the nineteen-eighties, concluded much the same as that study in France over a century earlier. Ellen Brown’s book, Forbidden Medicine gives us the following:
One of the few studies … was conducted by Dr. Hardin Jones, professor of medical physics and physiology at the University of California, Berkeley. He told an ACS panel, “My studies have proven conclusively that untreated cancer victims actually live up to four times longer than treated individuals. For a typical type of cancer, people who refused treatment lived for an average of 12-1/2 years. Those who accepted surgery or other kinds of treatment [chemotherapy, radiation, cobalt] lived an average of only three years. . . . I attribute this to the traumatic effect of surgery on the body’s natural defense mechanism. The body has a natural defense against every type of cancer.
By shrinking tumors, chemotherapy encourages stronger cancer cells to grow and multiply and become chemo resistant.
Then there are the new cancers caused by chemotherapy, or secondary cancers. This quaint side effect is often overlooked in the lists of side effects in a drug’s accompanying literature, though you can find this information quite easily at the National Cancer Institute.
We pride ourselves in America for being technologically advanced and that our technology is rooted in a foundation of good science.
Wrong. When it comes to medicine, little at all is based upon science. Again we shall point to the Office of Technological Assessment’s paper: Assessing the Efficacy and Safety of Medical Technologies in which we are told that fewer than 20% of all medical procedures have been tested, and that of those tested, half were tested badly.
Medicine in America is not about healing.
When you are diagnosed with cancer, you are suddenly worth $300,000.00 to the cancer industry.
Most telling, according to Ralph Moss in his book Questioning Chemotherapy, is that in a good number of surveys, chemotherapists have responded that they would neither recommend chemotherapy for their families nor would they use it themselves. One of our advisors, Dr Dan Harper, reported to us about an unpublished cohort study in which it was revealed that only 9% of oncologists took chemotherapy for their cancers.
Let’s hear from a few physicians and scientists who have not yet succumb to the heavy hand of the cancer industry:
“…as a chemist trained to interpret data, it is incomprehensible to me that physicians can ignore the clear evidence that chemotherapy does much, much more harm than good.” – Alan C Nixon, PhD, former president of the American Chemical Society.
Walter Last, writing in The Ecologist, reported recently: “After analysing cancer survival statistics for several decades, Dr Hardin Jones, Professor at the University of California, concluded “…patients are as well, or better off untreated.” Jones’ disturbing assessment has never been refuted.
Professor Charles Mathe declared: “If I contracted cancer, I would never go to a standard cancer treatment centre. Cancer victims who live far from such centres have a chance.”
“Many medical oncologists recommend chemotherapy for virtually any tumor, with a hopefulness undiscouraged by almost invariable failure,” Albert Braverman MD 1991 Lancet 1991 337 p901 “Medical Oncology in the 90s.”
“Most cancer patients in this country die of chemotherapy. Chemotherapy does not eliminate breast, colon, or lung cancers. This fact has been documented for over a decade, yet doctors still use chemotherapy for these tumors,” Allen Levin, MD UCSF The Healing of Cancer.
“Despite widespread use of chemotherapies, breast cancer mortality has not changed in the last 70 years,” Thomas Dao, MD NEJM Mar 1975 292 p 707.
Additionally, Irwin Bross, a biostatistician for the National Cancer Institute, discovered that many cancers that are benign (though thought to be malignant) will not metastasize until they are hit with chemotherapy. In other words, he’s found that many people who’ve been diagnosed with metastatic cancer did not have metastatic cancer until they got their chemotherapy.
For many cancers, chemotherapy just does not improve your survival rate. Some of these are colorectal, gastric, pancreatic, bladder, breast, ovarian, cervical and corpus uteri, head and neck.
Knowing this, oncologists still recommend a regimen of chemotherapy.
Here are two stories we received from Frank Wiewel (from People Against Cancer):
When President Reagan had his colon cancer successfully removed by surgery, his health was reported daily as he recovered. On his return to work, a spokesperson appeared, proclaimed him cured, and that was that.
However, very nearly every patient who undergoes surgery for colon cancer gets put on chemotherapy afterwards. Why not Present Reagan?
Frank told us about Dr Charles Simone, who today handles cancers with diet and lifestyle changes, who was hired on as the president’s personal oncologist. The public never learned of this because the good doctor was stuffed into a grocery truck and made his entrance into the White House through the backdoor where deliveries are made.
Frank also told us of a time he met with some of the top oncologists in the country. He had a lot of questions for them, one of them being: “Knowing the odds of successful outcome using chemotherapy are nil in many cancer cases, why do you continue to prescribe chemotherapy?”
The answer he got was this: “We give it to patients so they won’t give up hope and fall into the hands of quacks.”
Quacks? Implicit in the definition of quackery is the sale of worthless or dangerous nostrums for profit. Who exactly are the quacks here?
This next piece is from the University of Iowa’s website [Note: the pages have been expurgated from their website, however, we have here the only copy. 3/31/07]:
Patients and caregivers shall be taught safe, proper, handling and disposal of waste generated during continuous infusions of chemotherapy.
The following procedures should be implemented immediately if a chemotherapy leak or spill should occur:
The original link that led to a site that where images of the clothing and kits required to clean up a chemo spill has closed down. It seems those in charge don’t want the public to see all that is necessary to clean up a spill. You can google all day long and find only bits and pieces. But we’re pretty sure that the lack of images is not because chemotherapy for cancer has become less toxic over the years.
We’ve lost the war on cancer. As an ex-soldier, I’m aware what is required to win any war. You need dedicated soldiers, well trained and capable. You need the proper weapons. And, unlike our war in Iraq, you need a plan.
The war on cancer used the wrong weapons and, sadly, its only plan was to profit. In this case, the war is very successful. Many have profited. In fact this is the first war in which the soldiers profited nearly as much as the arms manufacturers. The only casualties in this war are the patients, whose numbers grow daily.
Chemotherapy is not only deadly, in 80% of cancers it is fraud. Period.
To date, not a single non-toxic cancer drug has been approved by the FDA. [UPDATE: Because the FDA and Texas Board of Medical Examiners were unable to shut down Dr Burzynski’s office and end his research, the FDA was cornered, and consented to allowed Dr Burzynski to conduct Phase II Trials on his therapy, antineoplastons. A drug, Buphenyl, that Dr Burzynski developed that is non toxic and causes the liver to create antineoplastons, has been approved and is now available through prescription.]
As Frank Wiewel tells people, “Ask your oncologist for a guarantee. See what he says.”
Considering the six minutes HMOs schedule you to meet with your physician along with the studies showing that your physician spends 1.3 minutes answering your questions, pondering your options will have to take place outside your doctor’s office.
This is one reason why we publish articles like these. You need a second opinion.
Cancer Wars: How Politics Shapes What We Know and Don’t Know About Cancer by Robert N. Proctor (New York: Basic Books, 1995)
World Without Cancer, by Edward G Grifin
Fifty Years of Folly and Fraud “In The Name of Science,” by Irwin Bross (I’m sorry, but even I gave away my copy and there’s none to be found anywhere.)
I just read your wellness article about Chemotherapy. It rings so true! I am a registered nurse. When I was first a new nurse I worked on an oncology ward. What a sick and sad thing I got into. Luckily, I got out of that after 9 months and worked 7 years in hospice. I can certainly testify that Chemo doesn’t work and just puts people in the grave sooner. I just wanted to let you know that some of your links in the article do not work anymore. I wanted to find the Iowa study but it doesn’t go to where you say. Also, the link to Chemical spills doesn’t go where it should. It is almost as if these web sites purposely removed or moved the info. God Bless your work. May the truth prevail! Marie
Ed: We’ve fixed the links and then they went out again. We’re going to have to publish our own pages on chemo spills. Apparently the medical industry doesn’t like this kind of information getting out.
I am a 63 year old woman who had breast cancer in 1986. I went through chemotherapy and then put on Tamoxifen for five years. During this time frame I struggled to find energy to keep going. A product named KM was introduced to me. From this product, I was able to find energy to keep going. I did O.K. for several years. About six years ago I searched for a medical doctor that also understood natural supplements. He has been monitoring my husband and my blood and suggesting we use some supplements to correct our dysfunction bodies. He is knowledgeable and has helped many people regain good health. But he has not been able to help me. We have discovered that I have no immune system to speak of. I have to take lots of supplements to help. My hormonal system is shot too. How much damage was done during chemo, I do not know yet. But it is appearing that there was a lot of damage done to my body and now I am trying to get it working again. It took years for some of the damage to show up. I get sick a lot. I have to be very careful around people. Even though I try to be careful, I always manage to get sick and stay sick all winter long. Shari
A Dull Weapon: Chemotherapy Almost Useless in Treating Advanced Organic Cancer— Provocative Theses at the Hamburg Cancer Congress
Mammography — Myths & Alternatives
The History of Echinacea
Fish Oils & Vitamin D Are Worthless (we call bullshit)
Johanna Budwig Revisited
Please log in again. The login page will open in a new tab. After logging in you can close it and return to this page.