The Cancer Racket

[Guest guest]

The Cancer Racket

by Gavin

" Everyone should know that most cancer research is largely a fraud... " -

Linus ing Ph.D. (1901-1994) Two times Nobel Prize winner.

By the time that you have finished reading this article, eleven Americans

will have died from cancer. This year, about 1.2 million Americans will be

diagnosed with cancer and some 560,000 will die from it. The rates have

doubled in less than forty years. In 1971 President Nixon declared the

famous " war on cancer " . Thirty years and some thirty billion research

dollars later we are still being prescribed the same three failing

treatments; surgery, chemotherapy and radiation treatment. Why?

Three Case Studies

My answer begins with a synopsis of three alternative treatments that have

been suppressed for decades by orthodox medicine. First, I must stress that

none of these treatments is a guaranteed cancer cure. Some work better with

one person than another, depending on the type of cancer.

A vitally important role is one of a strict nutritional diet.

Royal Rife

The first story is about the Rife radio frequency machine. Royal

Rife was born 1888, in Elkhorn, Nebraska. Rife's passions were microscopes,

microbiology, and electronics. What is an undisputed fact is Rife's genius

in building incredibly complex light microscopes. Roy built five in total,

the largest and most powerful was his " Universal Microscope " made with just

over 5,200 parts. Electron microscopes today are more powerful but they

kill the minute organisms Rife was attempting to see. You have to be able

to see them alive in order to identify them and, more importantly, identify

what kills them.

It took Rife about twelve years, between 1920-1932, to isolate the cancer

microbe. He named it the BX virus. Rife began subjecting the cancer microbe

to different radio frequencies to see if it was affected by them. After

experimenting for thousands of hours, Rife discovered what he called the

" Mortal Oscillatory Rate " of the cancer microbe. Simply, the exact

frequency that killed it. Rife successfully cured cancer in over 400

experimental animals before testing was ready for humans.

Dr. Millbank , a close friend of Rife's, setup the Special Medical

Research Committee to witness what transpired at this first clinic. In the

summer of 1934, sixteen terminally ill cancer patients were given three

minutes of the frequency every day. They soon learned that this was too

much because the human body needed more time to dispose of the dead toxins.

They were given three minutes every third day. Fourteen of the supposedly

terminally ill patients were clear of cancer and healthy when the clinic

closed after three months. The other two patients were pronounced cured one

month after the clinic closed. There were very minimal, if any, short term

side effects.

Rife wrote in 1953; " 16 cases were treated at the clinic for many types of

malignancy. After 3 months, 14 of these so-called hopeless cases were

signed off as clinically cured by the staff of five medical doctors and Dr.

Alvin G. Foord, M.D. Pathologist for the group. "

In 1937 Rife and some colleagues established a company called Beam Ray.

They manufactured fourteen Frequency Instruments. Dr. Couche, who was

present at the clinic, used one of Rife's machines with great success for

22 years. The most powerful man in medicine at this time was Dr.

Fishbein. He was chief editor of the American Medical Associations (AMA)

Journal. Fishbein had failed anatomy and never treated a patient in his

life. His only motivation was money and power. He decided which drugs were

to be sold to the public based solely on the drug manufacturers willingness

to pay the advertising rates that he set. Fishbein heard about Rife's

frequency machine and wanted to buy a share. The offer was refused. He then

offered Phil Hoyland, an investor, legal assistance to enable him to steal

the company from Rife and the other investors. A lawsuit ensued.

The trial of 1939 put an end to any proper scientific investigation of the

Frequency Instrument. The trial was the undoing of Rife. Not used to being

savagely attacked in open court he crumbled under the pressure. Although he

won the case, he turned to alcohol and became an alcoholic. Fishbein used

his pervasive power within the AMA to thwart further investigation of

Rife's work. Dr. Millbank died in 1944. In 1950 Rife joined up with

Crane who was an electrical engineer. They worked together for ten

years building more advanced frequency machines. But in 1960 the AMA closed

them down. Crane was imprisoned for three years and a month, even though

fourteen patients testified as to the effectiveness of the machine. Rife

died in 1971.

Amygdalin/Laetrile

In 1952 Dr. Ernst Krebs from San Francisco advanced the theory that cancer

is a deficiency disease, similar to scurvy or pellagra. His theory was that

the cause of the disease was the lack of an essential food compound in

modern-man's diet. He identified it as part of the nitriloside family which

is found in over 1200 edible plants. Nitriloside, generally referred to as

amygdalin, is especially prevalent in the seeds of apricot, blackthorn

cherry, nectarine, peach, apples and others.

The best way for Krebs to prove his theory would be to have thousands of

people eat a diet very high in amygdalin and monitor them. An enormously

costly exercise to say the least. Fortunately for Krebs, the experiment had

already been carried out. Nestled between W. Pakistan, India and China is

the tiny kingdom of Hunza. The people of Hunza consume 200 times more

amygdalin in their diet than the average American. Visiting medical teams

found them cancer free. In 1973 Prince Mohammed Khan, son of the Mir of

Hunza told Hillinger of the LA Times the average age of his people

is about 85. More importantly, they live vigorous and mentally alert lives

up until a few days before they die.

Only in recent years have the first few Hunza cancer cases been reported.

That is due to a narrow road being carved in the mountain and food from the

" civilized " world is reaching Hunza. In the 1970s the FDA mounted a

widespread and erroneous media campaign alleging that amygdalin is toxic

and dangerous because it contains cyanide. Yes, it does, in minute

quantities. If you eat the seeds from a hundred apples in a day you risk

serious side effects, possibly death. If you eat enormous amounts of

anything you run serious health risks. Aspirin is twenty times more toxic

than the same amount of amygdalin.

Orthodox medicine says that Laetrile (a purified form of amygdalin

developed by Dr. Krebs) was thoroughly tested and found to be worthless.

The longest and most famous Laetrile tests ever performed were run for

nearly five years at Americas most prestigious cancer research center,

Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York. At the conclusion of

the trials, on June 15, 1977, they released a press statement. The press

release read;

" ...Laetrile was found to possess neither preventative, nor

tumor-regressent, nor anti-metastatic, nor curative anticancer activity. "

So that is it then, right? It does not get more adamant than that, we can

close the book on Laetrile. Unfortunately for the officials at

Sloan-Kettering there was an unforeseen problem. When a journalist asked

Dr. Kanematsu Sugiura; " Do you stick by your belief that Laetrile stops the

spread of cancer " ? He replied, " I stick. " Those two words were a major

embarrassment to the accumulated demigods on the dais. The reason being is

that Dr. Kanematsu Sugiura was the preeminent cancer researcher in America,

probably the world, at this time. Nobody had ever questioned Sugiura's data

in over sixty years of cancer research before. Sugiura was asked why

Sloan-Kettering was against Laetrile.

" Why are they so much against it " ? Sugiura answered " I don't know. Maybe

the medical profession doesn't like it because they are making too much

money. "

Sugiura had to be proven wrong. But other researchers had obtained

essentially the same positive results. Dr. Lloyd Schloen a biochemist at

Sloan-Kettering had included proteolytic enzymes to his injections and

reported 100% cure rate among his albino mice. This data had to be buried.

They then changed the protocols of the tests and amounts of Laetrile to

make certain that they failed. Not surprisingly, they failed, and that is

what they reported.

Sloan-Kettering's motives were clearly revealed in the minutes of a meeting

that top officials held on July 2, 1974. The discussions were private and

candid. The fact that numerous Sloan-Kettering officials were convinced of

the effectiveness of amygdalin is obvious, they just were not sure as to

the degree of its effectiveness. But they were not interested in further

testing of this natural product. The minutes read; " ...Sloan-Kettering is

not enthusiastic about studying amygdalin [Laetrile] but would like to

study CN (cyanide)-releasing drugs. "

Sloan-Kettering wanted a man-made patentable chemical to mimic the

qualities found in amygdalin, because that is where the money is. If a very

effective cancer treatment or cure was found in the lowly apricot seed, it

would spell economic disaster for the cancer industry.

The Hoxsey Remedies

Harry Hoxsey, born 1901, was an ex-coalminer with an 8th grade education.

From the 1920s to the 1950s Harry Hoxsey and his natural remedies would

wage the fiercest battle with conventional medicine this country has ever

seen. The remedies were handed down by Harry's great grandfather,

Hoxsey. , a veterinarian, had observed a horse he owned heal itself of

cancer by eating certain herbs in his pasture. used the herbs to heal

other animals of cancer.

Over the years other natural products were added and the remedy was tried

on humans. The Hoxsey treatment comprised of two components. A herbal tonic

which cleansed the body and boosted the immune system and an external paste

for tumors outside the body. Harry opened his first clinic in Dallas in

1924. By 1950 he was the largest privately owned cancer clinic in America,

represented in seventeen States. Although thousands of cancer patients

swore that Hoxsey had cured them of cancer, Harry was branded a " quack " and

charlatan by the medical community.

Dallas District Attorney, Al Templeton, detested Hoxsey and arrested him an

unprecedented one hundred times in two years. Hoxsey would bail himself out

within a day or two because Templeton could never persuade any of Harry's

patients to testify against him. Templeton vowed to put Hoxsey away for

good, until his own brother secretly used the Hoxsey therapy. His cancer

disappeared and Templeton gave Hoxsey the credit. In a startling about

face, Al Templeton became Hoxsey's lawyer and one of his greatest

advocates. In 1939, Esquire magazine writer Wakefield Burke was asked

to write a piece on Hoxsey and expose him as a quack. recalls; " I

came to Texas, I expected to stay about a day, get my information, and

leave. I became fascinated. I stayed for six weeks, every day Harry would

pick me up, bring me to the clinic. " ...He would put his arm around these

old men and woman, say, " Dad, them doctors been cutting you up, I ain't

gonna let them sons-o-bitches kill you...He'd treat them and they'd get

better and begin to get well. "

wrote an article entitled, " The Quack That Cured Cancer, " but Esquire

did not publish it. The late Mildred treated people with the Hoxsey

method for some fifty years, but initially she also thought Hoxsey was a

fraud. Mildred's mother, Della, had contracted uterine cancer and orthodox

medicine had given up on her. Mildred's mother and father wanted to try the

Hoxsey treatment. Mildred recalls trying to talk them out of it;

" ...I thought well, I'll talk mum out of it you know...they didn't budge.

So I thought, well, I'll go down there and see what's going on, then I can

get them out of it. "

" I called Harry and asked him if he still needed a nurse, " I sure do, be

here in the morning. " ...By the end of a year I began to realize, gee this

does help, mum had gotten better and to this day is alive and sassy as can

be. "

Mildred and Burke had done something the National Cancer

Institute has never done; investigate Hoxsey and his treatments first hand.

They found him to be a caring and effective healer who was not profiting

from cancer patients. Harry had swore on his fathers death bed that

everyone would have access to the remedy, regardless of their ability to

pay. As Harry said; " I don't have to do this kind of work, I've got more

oil wells than a lot of men call themselves big producers...Any man that

would traffic on sick, dying, limp the lame or the blind caused from cancer

is the worst scoundrel on earth. "

Still, the Hoxsey treatment does not work for everybody. Ironically, Hoxsey

himself contracted prostate cancer, but had to resort to surgery when his

remedies did not work for him. It was not long before the infamous

Fishbein of the AMA heard about the Hoxsey treatment and wanted to buy sole

rights to it, with some other AMA doctors. Hoxsey would only agree if it

stated in the contract that everyone would have access to the treatments,

not just a wealthy few. Fishbein refused and so began a 25-year battle,

fought in the media, between Fishbein and Hoxsey.

The mudslinging culminated in a lawsuit brought by Hoxsey against Fishbein.

Much to everyone's amazement, Hoxsey won the case. Even so, in the late

1950's the FDA closed down all of Hoxsey's clinics. Mildred took the

treatment to Tijuana Mexico in 1963. Mildred treated thousands of patients

with cancer until her death (her sister has taken over) in 1999. By all

accounts, Mildred was one of the finest, most compassionate caregivers you

are ever likely to find. While thousands state that Mildred cured them of

cancer and with medical records to prove it, the National Cancer Institute

turns a blind eye.

Mainstream Medicine vs. Alternative Treatments

So, what does mainstream medicine say about alternative cancer treatments

in general? The Pavlovian response is a rather supercilious, " They rely on

anecdotal evidence which is not scientific. "

Scientists attempt to sweep all patient testimony, verified by a doctor or

not, into the realms of myth and legend. They tell us that in order to test

the efficacy of a cancer treatment it must be subjected to the rigor of

countless double blind studies, clinical trials and peer review groups. In

theory this sounds fine, but in practice several flaws become apparent. In

fifty years of cancer research and umpteen experiments, no headway has been

made in finding an effective treatment or cure for the deadliest cancers.

The incidence of cancer is continually on the rise.

Another point is that these supposed exacting scientific drug trials are in

fact nothing of the sort. Clinical oncologists have an obvious vested

interest in producing positive results from cancer drug trials. Controlled

clinical trials are appropriately named because it is the scientist who

controls the outcome. Scientists are under enormous pressure by the

pharmaceutical companies to produce the " right " results. There are obvious

cases of outright fraud as you will see in the Tamoxifen trials (also see

May 16, 1999 New York Times article). There is also intentional and

unintentional bias such as not following the protocols of the experiment,

burying negative results, patient selection and statistical interpretation.

I see another factor here that has far more to do with human nature than

science. By trying to exclude first person testimony, scientists try to

control the path to truth. Only they have access to more exacting truths

through their complex procedures and mounds of statistics. Nonsense,

scientists have not copyrighted truth. They are fallible men and woman who

have fallen for some ages old human pitfalls; extreme arrogance and the

craving for more power. I will take the word of a relative or friend who

has cancer and no ax to grind, over these scientists with all their

personnel and political interests to serve.

The Establishment

Now I turn my attention to the cancer establishment. The agencies involved

are the National Cancer Institute (NCI), the American Cancer Society (ACS),

the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) and the American Medical Association.

These agencies have a long history of endemic corruption and conflict of

interest with the pharmaceutical industry. I will begin with the cancer

establishments three primary treatments; surgery, chemotherapy and

radiation treatment.

Surgery has been around for centuries and is the most successful. Surgery

is most effective against localized tumors, a small percentage of cancer

patients. If the cancer has spread to other parts of the body, it is far

less successful. If during surgery only one cancer cell reenters the blood

stream, cancer often starts again. How many times have cancer sufferers

heard the words, " we got it all " , only to find a few months later that it

has returned.

Chemotherapy drugs were derived from the mustard gas experiments during

World War I and World War II. They were heavily promoted in the early 1950s

by Cornelius Rhoads, head of the newly formed Sloan-Kettering Center for

Cancer Research. Chemotherapy is toxic, causes cancer and wrecks the immune

system. Cancer patients often die from opportunistic infections, or from

the drugs themselves due to their high toxicity.

Alan C. Nixon Ph.D., past president of the American Chemical Society

writes, " 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. "

Chemotherapy has had good results with a few rare cancers, about five

percent of cancer patients yearly. But according to author Ralph Moss, the

drugs were given to at least 700,000 people in 1991. It is alarming to note

that very few doctors would take their own medicine if they contracted

cancer. In one survey of 118 doctors, 79 responded. Fifty-eight (73

percent) said they would never take any chemotherapy due to its high

toxicity and ineffectiveness. The pharmaceutical companies are making a

fortune though. Chemotherapy drug sales were 3.1 billion in 1989, by 1995

they had almost tripled to 8.6 billion. Predicted sales in 1999 were 13.7

billion.

The final option, radiation treatment, has similar side effects to

chemotherapy. Its effectiveness is difficult to judge due to the fact that

it is most often given to patients after surgery. It may have some use

against a few rare cancers, but is given to hundreds of thousands. There is

a multibillion-dollar investment in radiation equipment throughout

America's hospitals and enormous profits to be made by using it.

Another grubby secret of the cancer establishment is their definition of

the word " cured. " According to them you are " cured " if you remain cancer

free for five years. If the cancer returns in six or eight years, then that

becomes a new case to be " cured " all over again. This brings about the

absurd situation of some people being " cured " two or three times in a

twenty-year period. The fact is of course that they were never cured at

all, just sent into lengthy remissions. But it is a convenient way for the

cancer establishment to artificially inflate their success rates.

The National Cancer Institute

The NCI was established in 1937 and was supposed to find a cancer cure or

effective treatment. In over sixty years there have been some small

successes with rarer cancers and some technological advances. But for most

cancer patients the chances of surviving have not changed since the 1950s.

It would be great if the NCI was even half as good at controlling cancer as

their public relations department is at pronouncing its imminent demise.

Over the years there have been dozens of headline smashing " miracle " drugs

which invariably failed to perform anywhere close to the hyperbole. In the

mid 1960s Dr. Lawrence Burton produced a very promising treatment called

Immuno-Augmentative Therapy. The treatment boosted the patient's immune

system. He moved the treatment to the Bahamas in 1977. Burton claimed the

NCI tried to steal his formula and then take credit for it.

Dr. Beaty sent twenty advanced cancer patients to Burton's clinic. Ten

experienced tumor regression. According to Beaty, " All ten owe their

survival to Dr. Burton's treatment... "

In 1985 the newspapers carried the story that Burton's treatment had become

infected with the AIDS virus. The clinic was closed down. Shortly

afterwards it was revealed that a top NCI official had spread lies which

were published in the AMA journal and in the press in order to close the

clinic down. In 1987 Dr. DeVita, head of NCI from 1980-1988,

recommended to 13,000 cancer specialists in North America to give

chemotherapy and surgery to all woman with breast cancer, regardless of

whether it had spread. DeVita was a Chemotherapy specialist.

Dr. Alan Levin of the University of California put the argument against

DeVita bluntly: " Most cancer patients in this country die of Chemotherapy. "

In 1988 DeVita left NCI for a $400,000 a year position with Sloan-Kettering

in New York as physician-in-chief of the cancer research area. A major

scandal rocked the NCI in 1994 when the Chicago Tribune broke the story of

large-scale fraud in the Tamoxifen drug trials. Dr. Bernard Fisher was in

charge of the taxpayer funded (about 68 million dollars) National Surgical

Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project of NCI. Fisher used data he knew to be

fraudulent in an article published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Broder, director of the NCI, was also informed about the fraud but

remained silent.

Tamoxifen received enormous media exposure thanks to the NCI. They stated

that in clinical trials it had a success rate of preventing cancer in 45

percent of the woman who took part in the trials. But two smaller trials of

Tamoxifen in England and Italy showed no preventative benefit. Tamoxifen

may just delay the onset of breast cancer. The NCI hardly mentions (if at

all, I could not find any mention of it on their website. -Gavin) the fact

that Tamoxifen is a known carcinogen. It increases the risk of uterine

cancer for woman under fifty by two times and woman over fifty by four

times, as well as other serious side effects. Yet this drug is approved for

cancer prevention in healthy woman. After the embarrassing Tamoxifen

episode, NCI director Broder resigned in 1995. He took a position at

Ivax, Inc., a company producing chemotherapy drugs. His salary is

approximately twice what he was earning at the NCI.

Another little known fact is that many drugs developed by the NCI, at

taxpayer expense, are then handed over to pharmaceutical companies who reap

the massive profits. A good example of this is the anticancer drug Taxol

which was approved in 1992. The NCI had spent a fortune on clinical trials

and developing the drugs' manufacturing process. They then gave exclusive

rights to Bristol-Myers Squibb who charge us $4.87 per milligram, twenty

times what it costs to make.

The American Cancer Society

Formed in 1913, the ACS was reorganized in 1944. The new leadership

comprised of Albert Lasker, an advertising tycoon and Elmer Bobst,

president of two drug companies. Albert Lasker's wife, , ran the ACS

for thirty some years. was only interested in researching profit

motivated patentable drugs. The big payoff for came in December 1971,

when President Nixon signed into law the " war on cancer. " During the decade

of the 1970s Lasker and prominent private cancer research hospitals

such as Memorial Sloan-Kettering ruled the national cancer program.

The ACS has a committee to identify any doctor prescribing treatments that

are not endorsed by them.

For years, the ACS's Committee on Unproven Methods of Cancer Management and

the AMA's Committee on Quackery (disbanded 1974) collaborated in

persecuting anyone threatening the status quo. According to journalist Ruth

Rosenbaum, they " form a network of vigilantes prepared to pounce on anyone

who promotes a cancer therapy that runs against their substantial

prejudices and profits. " Epstein writes about the ACS's Committee on

Unproven Methods of CancerManagement; " Periodically, the committee updates

it's statements on " unproven methods " ...Once a clinician or oncologist

becomes associated with " unproven methods " , he or she is blackballed by the

cancer establishment. Funding for the accused " quack " becomes inaccessible,

followed by systematic harassment. " What happens to the hundreds of

millions of dollars the ACS collects every year? In September 1990, a study

by Dr. T. of Mason University concluded; " The American

Cancer Society...had a fund balance of $426.2 million in 1988, and it held

net investments (after depreciation) in land, buildings and equipment of

$69 million. That same year, the ACS spent only $89.2 million, or 26

percent of its budget on medical research. "

In January 1995 " The Phoenix New Times " wrote a lengthy investigative

article about the Arizona chapter of the ACS. They found that in 1994 the

Arizona ACS had only given $47,183, out of the millions raised, directly to

people suffering with cancer. A staggering 95% of funds received went to

salaries and overhead.

The ACS is famous for making highly exaggerated and misleading statements.

On March 15, 1987, the ACS officially announced, " Caught early enough,

breast cancer has cure rates approaching 100 percent. " There is no such

thing as a cure for breast cancer, only survival rates. As Dr. Dean Burk

said, " They (ACS) lie like scoundrels. "

The ACS and NCI have been intertwined since the 1950s. About half of the

ACS board is comprised of oncologists, radiologists, clinicians and others

with a vested interest in traditional cancer research. Key ACS and NCI

officials often sit on each others committees. ACS board members and their

colleagues receive grants from one or both institutions. This old boys

network maintains the status quo and guarantees that the vast majority of

funding stays within orthodox medicine.

The Federal Drug Administration

In 1970, former FDA commissioner Dr. Herbert Ley said, " The thing that bugs

me is that the people think the FDA is protecting them. It isn't. What the

FDA is doing and what the public thinks it is doing are as different as

night and day. "

In 1974 eleven FDA scientists testified in the Senate " ...That they were

harassed by agency officials...Whenever they recommended against approval

of marketing some new drug. "

The FDA's generic drug scandal hit the news in 1989. Several FDA reviewers

were accepting bribes from some drug companies to speed their drugs through

the process and derail those submitted by competing companies. According to

a Tuft's University study released in 1990, it now takes 12 years and costs

231 million dollars to research, test and obtain approval for a new drug.

Because of the FDA's glacially slow and inept bureaucracy, many potentially

useful drugs cannot be brought to market due to the excessive cost and time

involved.

A battle being fought now epitomizes how far the FDA will go in order to

protect the drug companies profits. For over a year Jim and Donna Navarro

have fought the FDA for the right to give their five year old son, ,

an alternative treatment. suffered with Medulloblastoma, a type of

malignant brain cancer. After surgery, chemotherapy was recommended. Jim

and Donna asked what the side effects were.

" ...Fluid on the middle ear, hearing loss, memory loss, hyperthyroidism,

spinal growth deficit... " The list went on. Worse, permanent retardation.

Jim and Donna researched their son's cancer for thousands of hours. They

found Dr. Burzynski's treatment (antineoplastons) in Houston, that has had

some very good success with this type of brain cancer, with minimal

short-term side effects.

The FDA has been persecuting Dr. Burzynski for over 15 years. They refused

to allow Burzynski to treat until he had undergone chemotherapy and

radiation treatment first. Jim and Donna pleaded with the FDA commissioner

Jane Henney, her superior Donna Shalala and several politicians, all to no

avail. The FDA would rather see Navarro dead than taking the

medicine of his parents choice. The FDA's motives are explicitly clear.

Prominent FDA officials protect the pharmaceutical company's profit margins

and are later rewarded with lucrative positions within those same

companies. As Burzynski says; " The past commissioner of the FDA -- now he

is an official of one of the large pharmaceutical companies, with a salary

of 2 million a year. "

If the FDA allowed Navarro access to Burzynski's treatment they

would have opened the door to other people demanding the same option. Very

soon people will want the right to choose any alternative treatment. That

is a road the FDA definitely does not want to go down.

The American Medical Association

The AMA is responsible for licensing of all Doctors in America. They play

an important role in suppressing alternative treatments by networking with

the ACS and FDA in identifying and punishing doctors that step out of line.

Since Fishbein's day the AMA has relied on the revenue received from

drug manufacturers to advertise in their various medical journals.

On February 6, 1973, two former chairman and 1 vice chair of the AMA's

council on drugs testified before Congress and said that the AMA was, " ...A

captive of and beholden to the pharmaceutical industry. " In 1987 the AMA

was found guilty of conspiring for 20 years to destroy the profession of

chiropractitioners.

The War On Cancer

The supposed " war on cancer " is little more than a grand illusion conjured

up by the cancer establishments propaganda gurus. The formula is eons old.

Repeatedly chisel your message into peoples psyches; " cancer breakthrough " ,

" scientists say they are " ...Turning the tide on cancer. " We become

unwitting human satellites, bouncing the deception from one person to another.

There never was a determined, no holds-barred war on cancer. There is a

fanatical and hate-filled war being waged against the few courageous

doctors and innovative healers who prescribe natural treatments. There is a

war of protectionism. Protecting the status quo, protecting the grant money

trough, and above all, protecting the pharmaceutical cartels' monopoly.

There have been at least a dozen very encouraging cancer treatments in the

last seventy years. The Rife frequency machine, Laetrile, Hoxsey,

Antineoplastons, Coley's Toxins, Glyoxylide, Hydrazine Sulfate, Krebiozen,

Immuno-Augmentative Therapy, Dr. Max Gerson's Diet, to name a few. They all

have two things in common. The people advocating the therapy are branded

charlatans or quacks and the treatment is denounced as worthless by

scientists who have been selling us out for generations.

A radical change in cancer research is needed. The natural, nutritional and

other innovative approaches should be studied and made available to cancer

patients immediately. Most important, we must have medical freedom of

choice. For us to achieve those changes, we have to overcome a far tougher

opponent than cancer. A battle Royal against the $110 billion a year cancer

industry. Ultimately, our greatest enemy is apathy.

To succeed, we will need people willing to step up to the plate and speak

out, undeterred by being labeled politically incorrect. People with plenty

of good old fashioned guts, character and an iron will to see it through

until the job is done. We will prevail. It's inevitable. Because when good

women and men put their minds to something, the mightiest walls of

oppression can and will be shattered.

WE DON'T NEED TERRORISTS TO KILL OUR PEOPLE...THIS SAYS ENOUGH..!!!!