Dr. Tim O'Shea in TO THE CANCER PATIENT: “Most cancers are not found until autopsy. That's because they never caused any symptoms. For example 30 - 40 times as many cases of thyroid, pancreatic, and prostate cancer are found in autopsy than ever presented to the doctor. According to a study cited in top British medical journal Lancet 13 Feb 93,
early screening often leads to unnecessary treatment: 33% of autopsies show prostate cancer but only 1% die from it. After age 75, half of males may have prostate cancer, but only 2% die from it. This means simply that the immune system can hold many problems in check, as long as it is not compromised by powerful procedures. ... A 1992 study in Journal of the American Medical Association of 223 patients concluded that no treatment at all for prostate cancer actually was better than any standard chemotherapy, radiation or surgical procedure. (Johansson)”.
A very poignant example of what this type of “overdiagnosing” can lead to in a case of “breast cancer” is furnished by L. P. whose report details the shock, trauma & disfigurement she experienced after a mammogram revealed a tiny anomaly in her left breast. Clearly, in her case (as I feel in many or possibly most other cases of official cancer diagnosis) doing “nothing” but upgrading one’s diet (which is actually frequently of central importance, not just re cancer but for overall physical and mental health recovery and/or maintenance) and generally improving one’s life and lifestyle on all levels (emotional, spiritual, environmental etc.) would have been immeasurably more beneficent, and probably led to true healing, i.e. healing at the causative level.
Indeed, one thing often forgotten is that everyone apparently "has" cancer, i.e. there are some maverick cells created all the time in most/all people’s bodies. These are officially diagnosed and labelled as cancer of course only after reaching a certain mass and when people have themselves "checked" (either because they are admonished to do so as the responsible thing to do via various "public health" announcements or because they observe symptoms of ill health in themselves). But frequently it seems what eventually kills people is not the cancer but rather the combined effect of the diagnosis (felt like a death sentence with the corresponding trauma and fear of dying, both negative emotional states which suppress the immune system) and the treatment they allow themselves to receive (invasive surgery/
WHO'S WINNING?
We're constantly being hit with media stories about "progress" in the war on cancer and new "breakthrough" drugs and procedures being "right around the corner." The military rhetoric hasn't changed since 1971. Is it true that we're winning the war against cancer like they're always telling us?
From the U.S. government's own statistical abstracts we find the real story:
Mortality from Cancer in the U.S.
year deaths/ 100,000
1967 157.2
1970 162.9
1982 187.3
1987 198.2
1988 198.4
1989 201.0
1990 203.2
1991 204.1
1992 204.1
source: Vital Statistics of the United States, vol.II 1967-1992
1992 is the last year for which data is currently available from Vital Statistics. There is nothing to indicate that there should be any downturn between 1992 and the present. In fact, independent analysis by the CA Journal for Cancer Clinicians, Jan 97, put the 1993 death rate at 220 per 100,000. Does that sound like progress?
Why does nobody know this? Bet you never saw this chart before.
Numbers can be twisted and made to do tricks. This chart is the raw data, not age adjusted or divided by race, or type of cancer. Anyone can dig this information up by going to any library reference section. But try finding a medical reference or journal article or a URL that uses this chart. Try finding a newspaper or magazine article in the last 15 years that uses the raw data. And this data says one thing: more people are dying of cancer now per capita than ever before, and nothing is slowing the increase. Not early detection, not better screenings, not new high tech machines, not radiation, not surgery, and definitely not chemotherapy.
Backtracking a little, in 1900 cancer was practically unheard of in this country. By 1950, there were about 150 cases of cancer per 100,000 population. In 1971, Nixon introduced the War on Cancer, opening the floodgates of massive research funding backed by the government. This situation escalated until by the 1980s, over $50 billion per year was being spent to "find the cure." And yet we have the plain data in the chart above. What is going on?
THE BUSINESS OF CANCER
Industry. Politics. Big money. Health care. Buying and selling. You know - life. More people living off cancer than ever died from it, and that's saying quite a lot since by the 1990s the amount spent for cancer research and treatment had jumped to $80 billion annually. But by this time more than 500,000 deaths per year in the U.S. were attributable to cancer, now second only to heart disease on the list of killer diseases. All this money has not improved the overall chances of survival from cancer even slightly.
Many cancer patients feel they're just a mark, a number, an insurance account. The goal of every visit seems to be running up the bill, not improving their overall health.
The American Cancer Society, for example, collects upwards of $400 million per year. Very little of this money ever finds its way to research. The majority of the money goes into investments and towards administration - lavish salaries and perqs for the Society's officers and employees. A funny thing is that written into the charter of the American Cancer Society is the clause that states that if a cure for cancer is ever found, on that day, the Society will disband. (The Cancer Industry) So think about it - is this an organization that is going to be motivated to find a cure for cancer?
This is the underlying reality, but what do we hear on the surface, coming at us every day from the scripted "reporting" of TV and news publications, or from the lips of the oncologists making their reassuring pronouncements on the outlook for our loved ones' chances of survival? We're "making progress." "Early detection" is giving us a much better chance of "getting it all" by means of immediate surgery or by chemotherapy and radiation. Then after surgery they tell us we need to do chemo to put "the icing on the cake." Frightened to death, and having nowhere else to turn, people have bought this company line for years and years. As a result, they have been dying on schedule. But then, why would people be told the truth? The goal of big money is big money. Finding a cure? Why on earth would anyone want to do that?
But there's a limit to everything, even with the stranglehold on information that is permitted to reach the purview of the general public. More and more of us have watched our parents or our friends die wretched deaths, as all the 'big guns' were pompously wheeled out, with the hospital happily billing the insurance until coverage runs out. And some of us are saying Wait a minute, this isn't about money - this is about my life. And people are deciding to take their chances without standard slash-and-burn protocols, either by just staying home and doing nothing, or else by experimentation with alternative therapies, which have always been there all these years, just below the surface.
CHEMOTHERAPY
Considering chemotherapy? Consider this:
"chemotherapy is basically ineffective in the vast of majority of cases in which it is given"
- Ralph Moss, PhD p81
"Cancer researchers, medical journals, and the popular media all have contributed to a situation in which many people with common malignancies are being treated with drugs not known to be effective."
- Dr. Martin Shapiro UCLA
"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
"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
Let's say you get cancer - in America it's 1 in 3. Your doctor says you need chemo and sends you to an office in the hospital. You have no symptoms yet, no pain, and you feel fine. But you're very frightened. You walk into the office and everyone else there is in obvious pain and most of them are dying. It's like a scene from a horror movie. Your first instinct is to run: I'm not like them! I'm alive! What am I doing here?
Then ask yourself this: in your entire life, how often have your true instincts been wrong?
A very poignant example of what this type of “overdiagnosing” can lead to in a case of “breast cancer” is furnished by L. P. whose report details the shock, trauma & disfigurement she experienced after a mammogram revealed a tiny anomaly in her left breast. Clearly, in her case (as I feel in many or possibly most other cases of official cancer diagnosis) doing “nothing” but upgrading one’s diet (which is actually frequently of central importance, not just re cancer but for overall physical and mental health recovery and/or maintenance) and generally improving one’s life and lifestyle on all levels (emotional, spiritual, environmental etc.) would have been immeasurably more beneficent, and probably led to true healing, i.e. healing at the causative level.
Indeed, one thing often forgotten is that everyone apparently "has" cancer, i.e. there are some maverick cells created all the time in most/all people’s bodies. These are officially diagnosed and labelled as cancer of course only after reaching a certain mass and when people have themselves "checked" (either because they are admonished to do so as the responsible thing to do via various "public health" announcements or because they observe symptoms of ill health in themselves). But frequently it seems what eventually kills people is not the cancer but rather the combined effect of the diagnosis (felt like a death sentence with the corresponding trauma and fear of dying, both negative emotional states which suppress the immune system) and the treatment they allow themselves to receive (invasive surgery/
WHO'S WINNING?
We're constantly being hit with media stories about "progress" in the war on cancer and new "breakthrough" drugs and procedures being "right around the corner." The military rhetoric hasn't changed since 1971. Is it true that we're winning the war against cancer like they're always telling us?
From the U.S. government's own statistical abstracts we find the real story:
Mortality from Cancer in the U.S.
year deaths/ 100,000
1967 157.2
1970 162.9
1982 187.3
1987 198.2
1988 198.4
1989 201.0
1990 203.2
1991 204.1
1992 204.1
source: Vital Statistics of the United States, vol.II 1967-1992
1992 is the last year for which data is currently available from Vital Statistics. There is nothing to indicate that there should be any downturn between 1992 and the present. In fact, independent analysis by the CA Journal for Cancer Clinicians, Jan 97, put the 1993 death rate at 220 per 100,000. Does that sound like progress?
Why does nobody know this? Bet you never saw this chart before.
Numbers can be twisted and made to do tricks. This chart is the raw data, not age adjusted or divided by race, or type of cancer. Anyone can dig this information up by going to any library reference section. But try finding a medical reference or journal article or a URL that uses this chart. Try finding a newspaper or magazine article in the last 15 years that uses the raw data. And this data says one thing: more people are dying of cancer now per capita than ever before, and nothing is slowing the increase. Not early detection, not better screenings, not new high tech machines, not radiation, not surgery, and definitely not chemotherapy.
Backtracking a little, in 1900 cancer was practically unheard of in this country. By 1950, there were about 150 cases of cancer per 100,000 population. In 1971, Nixon introduced the War on Cancer, opening the floodgates of massive research funding backed by the government. This situation escalated until by the 1980s, over $50 billion per year was being spent to "find the cure." And yet we have the plain data in the chart above. What is going on?
THE BUSINESS OF CANCER
Industry. Politics. Big money. Health care. Buying and selling. You know - life. More people living off cancer than ever died from it, and that's saying quite a lot since by the 1990s the amount spent for cancer research and treatment had jumped to $80 billion annually. But by this time more than 500,000 deaths per year in the U.S. were attributable to cancer, now second only to heart disease on the list of killer diseases. All this money has not improved the overall chances of survival from cancer even slightly.
Many cancer patients feel they're just a mark, a number, an insurance account. The goal of every visit seems to be running up the bill, not improving their overall health.
The American Cancer Society, for example, collects upwards of $400 million per year. Very little of this money ever finds its way to research. The majority of the money goes into investments and towards administration - lavish salaries and perqs for the Society's officers and employees. A funny thing is that written into the charter of the American Cancer Society is the clause that states that if a cure for cancer is ever found, on that day, the Society will disband. (The Cancer Industry) So think about it - is this an organization that is going to be motivated to find a cure for cancer?
This is the underlying reality, but what do we hear on the surface, coming at us every day from the scripted "reporting" of TV and news publications, or from the lips of the oncologists making their reassuring pronouncements on the outlook for our loved ones' chances of survival? We're "making progress." "Early detection" is giving us a much better chance of "getting it all" by means of immediate surgery or by chemotherapy and radiation. Then after surgery they tell us we need to do chemo to put "the icing on the cake." Frightened to death, and having nowhere else to turn, people have bought this company line for years and years. As a result, they have been dying on schedule. But then, why would people be told the truth? The goal of big money is big money. Finding a cure? Why on earth would anyone want to do that?
But there's a limit to everything, even with the stranglehold on information that is permitted to reach the purview of the general public. More and more of us have watched our parents or our friends die wretched deaths, as all the 'big guns' were pompously wheeled out, with the hospital happily billing the insurance until coverage runs out. And some of us are saying Wait a minute, this isn't about money - this is about my life. And people are deciding to take their chances without standard slash-and-burn protocols, either by just staying home and doing nothing, or else by experimentation with alternative therapies, which have always been there all these years, just below the surface.
CHEMOTHERAPY
Considering chemotherapy? Consider this:
"chemotherapy is basically ineffective in the vast of majority of cases in which it is given"
- Ralph Moss, PhD p81
"Cancer researchers, medical journals, and the popular media all have contributed to a situation in which many people with common malignancies are being treated with drugs not known to be effective."
- Dr. Martin Shapiro UCLA
"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
"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
Let's say you get cancer - in America it's 1 in 3. Your doctor says you need chemo and sends you to an office in the hospital. You have no symptoms yet, no pain, and you feel fine. But you're very frightened. You walk into the office and everyone else there is in obvious pain and most of them are dying. It's like a scene from a horror movie. Your first instinct is to run: I'm not like them! I'm alive! What am I doing here?
Then ask yourself this: in your entire life, how often have your true instincts been wrong?
No comments:
Post a Comment