Does Chemo work.
Chemotherapy and radiation can increase the risk of developing a second cancer by up to 100 times, according to Dr. Samuel S. Epstein.
Congressional Record, Sept. 9, 1987
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.
Professor Georges Mathé, French cancer specialist
...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
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
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
In 1986, McGill Cancer Center scientists sent a questionnaire to 118
doctors who treated non-small-cell lung cancer. More than three quarters of
them recruited patients and carried out trials of toxic drugs for lung
cancer. They were asked to imagine that they themselves had cancer, and
were asked which of six current trials they themselves would choose. Of the
79 respondents, 64 said they would not consent to be in a trial containing
cisplatin, a common chemotherapy drug Fifty-eight found all the trials
unacceptable. Their reasons? The ineffectiveness of chemotherapy and its
unacceptable degree of toxicity.
Famed German biostatistician Ulrich Abel, PhD, also found in a similar 1989
study that "the personal views of many oncologists seem to be in striking
contrast to communications intended for the public."
”Chemotherapy Report” http://seasilver.threadnet.com/Preventorium/chemo.htm
Chemotherapy is ineffective in treating most cancers, the exceptions being
acute lymphocytic leukemia, Hodgkin's disease, nonseminomatous testicular
cancer, as well as a few very rare forms of cancer, including
choriocarcinoma, Wilm's tumor, and retinoblastoma.
paraphrasing Dr. Ralph Moss in Questioning Chemotherapy
Except for two forms of cancer, chemotherapy does not cure. It tortures and
may shorten life -- no one can tell from the available data.
Dr. Candace Pert, Georgetown University School of Medicine
...chemotherapy is curative in very few cancers - testicular, Hodgkin's,
choriocarcinoma, childhood leukemia. In most common solid tumors - lung,
colon, breast, etc. - chemotherapy is NOT curative.
Dr. Jürgen Buche, Preventorium Institute
Chemotherapy is basically ineffective in the vast majority of cases in
which it is given.
Ralph Moss, PhD, former Director of Information for Sloan Kettering Cancer
Research Center
Many medical oncologists recommend chemotherapy for virtually any tumor,
with a hopefulness undiscouraged by almost invariable failure.
Albert Braverman MD 1991 Lancet 1991 337 p 901
"Medical Oncology in the 90s"
”Best book I've ever read on chemotherapy.”
Ralph Moss' Questioning Chemotherapy is a book that every person faced with
cancer must read before submitting to toxic chemicals which may very well
destroy the body's immune system. Unlike many alternative health authors
who base their conclusions on anecdotal evidence, Moss uses the medical
establishment's own research to prove that in almost all instances
chemotherapy is NOT a viable approach to improving cancer survival rates.
Moss also makes the important point that current cancer research has never
bothered to examine the mental anguish, physical suffering, and poor
quality of life endured by almost everyone whose doctors talk or scare them
into undergoing chemotherapy. Learning about the economics behind
chemotherapy drives the final nail into the coffin of a "therapy" that
educated people in the future will consider outrageous and reflective of
the current dark ages of so-called modern medicine. This is a must read
book for anyone who wants to know the truth behind chemotherapy or anyone
whose doctor wants to inject toxic chemicals into their bloodstream.
Chet Day’s review of ”Questioning Chemotherapy: A Critique of the Use of
Toxic Drugs in the Treatment of Cancer” by Ralph W. Moss
[Question: "How in the world, Dr Moss, can [chemotherapy] be considered a
standard cure, when it works for 2-4 [percent of cancer patients], and very
specific ones?
Answer: We are dealing with an industry. It is not supported by the facts.
The way that it is done is this. The drugs are tested in test tubes, and
they look for things that will kill cells. After you have found something
that kills cells, cancer cells, cell lines which are very abnormal
non-typical sort of growths, maybe a new life form almost, then you put it
into animals. Then if it kills the cancers before it kills the animals, and
shrinks the tumours, you consider you have an active agent. You then put it
into people, and go through the 3 phases the FDA prescribes for this, and
basically if you can shrink the tumour 50% or more for 28 days you have got
the FDA's definition of an active drug. That is called a response rate, so
you have a response.. Quite a bit [different from a cure] because when you
look to see if there is any life prolongation from taking this treatment
what you find is all kinds of hocus pocus and song and dance about the
disease free survival, and this and that. In the end there is no proof that
chemotherapy in the vast majority of cases actually extends life, and this
is the GREAT LIE about chemotherapy, that somehow there is a correlation
between shrinking a tumour and extending the life of the patient. [Or that
there is a correlation between looking at a cancer cell in a test tube and
the tumour in someone's body.] What happens as you grow those cells in cell
lines they become very weird. Hundreds and hundreds of generations later
they don't even look like even normal human cancer cells. They are things
that grow under glass, immortal cells, unlike ... normal cancer cells. So
much cancer research is very questionable because it is based on this cell
line research.
Ralph Moss, PhD, former Director of Information for Sloan Kettering Cancer
Research Center
CHEMOTHERAPY: AN UNPROVEN PROCEDURE
How can that be true of the main cancer treatment in the U.S.? Fact is, no
solid scientific studies or clinical trials prove chemotherapy's
effectiveness, except in a small percentage of very rare types of cancer.
For solid tumors of adults, the vast majority of cancer, or anything that
has metastasized, chemotherapy just doesn't work.
A German epidemiologist from the Heidelberg/Mannheim Tumor Clinic, Dr.
Ulrich Abel has done a comprehensive review and analysis of every major
study and clinical trial of chemotherapy ever done. His conclusions should
be read by anyone who is about to embark on the Chemo Express. To make sure
he had reviewed everything ever published on chemotherapy, Abel sent
letters to over 350 medical centers around the world asking them to send
him anything they had published on the subject. Abel researched thousands
of articles: it is unlikely that anyone in the world knows more about
chemotherapy than he.
The analysis took him several years, but the results are astounding: Abel
found that the overall worldwide success rate of chemotherapy was
"appalling" because there was simply no scientific evidence available
anywhere that chemotherapy can "extend in any appreciable way the lives of
patients suffering from the most common organic cancers." Abel emphasizes
that chemotherapy rarely can improve the quality of life. He describes
chemotherapy as "a scientific wasteland" and states that at least 80
percent of chemotherapy administered throughout the world is worthless, and
is akin to the "emperor's new clothes" - neither doctor nor patient is
willing to give up on chemotherapy even though there is no scientific
evidence that it works! - Lancet 10 Aug 91 No mainstream media even
mentioned this comprehensive study: it was totally buried.
Tim O'Shea in TO THE CANCER PATIENT
When any chemotherapeutic drug is spilled in the hospital or anywhere en
route, it is classified as a major biohazard, requiring the specialists to
come and clean it up with their space-suits and all their strictly
regulated protocols. Yet this same agent is going to be put into the human
body and is expected to cure it of disease? What's wrong with this picture?
Tim O'Shea in TO THE CANCER PATIENT
...chemo drugs are some of the most toxic substances ever designed to go
into a human body, their effects are very serious, and are often the direct
cause of death. Like the case of Jackie Onassis, who underwent chemo for
one of the rare diseases in which it generally has some beneficial results:
non-Hodgkins lymphoma. She went into the hospital on Friday and was dead by
Tuesday.
Tim O'Shea in TO THE CANCER PATIENT
PROSTATE CANCER
is one of the worst areas of chemotherapy abuse, according to Norman
Zinner, MD. He states: "Most men with prostate cancer will die from other
illnesses never knowing they had the problem."
Hormones have been used as therapy since the 1940s, with no overall
improvement in survival. Early detection of prostate cancer has resulted in
thousands of men being treated for a condition that would have been
self-limiting. No figures are available for those who have died from the
side effects of treatment when the condition would never have caused any
problems or symptoms during the patient's entire lifetime...Some studies
show rates as high as 40% in autopsies of men over 70 in which prostate
cancer was discovered which the patient never knew about, and which was not
the cause of death. (American Cancer Society, 1995).
There are no randomized clinical trials proving that chemotherapy for
prostate cancer increases long term survival. Au contraire, a 1992 study
published in JAMA demonstrated that there was no difference in 10 year
survival rate between the men who did nothing at all and those who had
treatment. (Johansson)
Tim O'Shea in TO THE CANCER PATIENT
THE BI-PHASIC EFFECT: WHY CHEMO DOESN'T WORK
Every time we put a drug in our body, two things happen:
1. what the drug initially does to the body
2. how the body adapts to the drug
Any example will do. Antibiotics? First, the drug kills all bacteria in the
body. Then the body responds by growing them back, often with the bad
bacteria out of balance, which come back in more powerful, mutated forms.
Steroids? First, muscles are built because testosterone has been mimicked.
Then the body responds by cutting production of natural testosterone, which
eventually feminizes the athlete by shrinking the gonads... Obviously these
are simplifications, but you get the idea.
“Drugs tend to worsen whatever they're supposed to cure, which sets up a
vicious circle.” Dr. Dean Black in Health at the Crossroads p. 20
The Bi-Phasic Effect is well-explained by Dean Black and many other
researchers who were trying to figure out why tumors seemed to come back
with such a vengeance after chemotherapy. Some original work was done by
American Cancer Society researcher Robert Schimke in 1985, who discovered
that the way cancer cells resist chemotherapy is to replicate even harder
and faster. Chemo drugs are lethal; so the cancer cells are stimulated to
try and survive any way they can, which means faster growth. In the
presence of any toxin, cells will resist it to stay alive. The more they
resist, the stronger they get. Black sees cancer itself is just an
adaptation; a normal response to an abnormal poison. Chemotherapy simply
provokes adaptation. (Black, p. 45) This is why we all know people who have
had chemotherapy and experienced temporary remission. But when the tumor
came back, it did so with a vengeance, and the patient was quickly overwhelmed.
Schimke talks about the possible effects chemotherapy might have on a tumor
that otherwise may have been self-limiting:
"Might such treatments convert relatively benign tumors into more lethal
forms?" Robert Schimke p. 1915
Think about this the next time you hear an oncologist talk about "mopping
up" with powerful chemo drugs just to be sure we "got it all." Or
prescribing powerful chemotherapy for a "pre-cancerous" or even a benign
situation.
To understand the bi-phasic effect, one begins to realize that drugs are
fighting the body. The whole military motif - medicine imposes its will
upon the body, even though we have vastly incomplete information to be
doing something that arrogant.
Tim O'Shea in TO THE CANCER PATIENT
Because of the problem of nausea and vomiting caused by cancer itself as
well as many chemotherapy agents and/or radiation therapy, many cancer
patients develop anorexia - the loss of appetite or desire to eat. This
situation is not good at all because it can lead to a condition known as
cancer "cachexia" - a wasting syndrome characterized by weakness and a
noticeable continuous loss of weight, fat, and muscle. It is estimated that
roughly 40% of cancer patients actually die of malnutrition rather than
their disease itself.
http://doctormurray.com/articles/chemotherapy.htm
If your friend touches chemotherapy, he's a goner.
Chemotherapy expert Ernst Wynder, former professor at Sloan-Kettering
Hospital and recipient of a medal from the American Cancer Association, in
a warning to a friend of professor Gearin-Tosh who healed himself of one of
the most lethal cancers known using natural means.
Why so much use of chemotherapy if it does so little good? Well for one
thing, drug companies provide huge economic incentives. In 1990, $3.53
billion was spent on chemotherapy. By 1994 that figure had more than
doubled to $7.51 billion. This relentless increase in chemotherapy use was
accompanied by a relentless increase in cancer deaths.
”Chemotherapy Report”
Congressional Record, Sept. 9, 1987
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.
Professor Georges Mathé, French cancer specialist
...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
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
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
In 1986, McGill Cancer Center scientists sent a questionnaire to 118
doctors who treated non-small-cell lung cancer. More than three quarters of
them recruited patients and carried out trials of toxic drugs for lung
cancer. They were asked to imagine that they themselves had cancer, and
were asked which of six current trials they themselves would choose. Of the
79 respondents, 64 said they would not consent to be in a trial containing
cisplatin, a common chemotherapy drug Fifty-eight found all the trials
unacceptable. Their reasons? The ineffectiveness of chemotherapy and its
unacceptable degree of toxicity.
Famed German biostatistician Ulrich Abel, PhD, also found in a similar 1989
study that "the personal views of many oncologists seem to be in striking
contrast to communications intended for the public."
”Chemotherapy Report” http://seasilver.threadnet.com/Preventorium/chemo.htm
Chemotherapy is ineffective in treating most cancers, the exceptions being
acute lymphocytic leukemia, Hodgkin's disease, nonseminomatous testicular
cancer, as well as a few very rare forms of cancer, including
choriocarcinoma, Wilm's tumor, and retinoblastoma.
paraphrasing Dr. Ralph Moss in Questioning Chemotherapy
Except for two forms of cancer, chemotherapy does not cure. It tortures and
may shorten life -- no one can tell from the available data.
Dr. Candace Pert, Georgetown University School of Medicine
...chemotherapy is curative in very few cancers - testicular, Hodgkin's,
choriocarcinoma, childhood leukemia. In most common solid tumors - lung,
colon, breast, etc. - chemotherapy is NOT curative.
Dr. Jürgen Buche, Preventorium Institute
Chemotherapy is basically ineffective in the vast majority of cases in
which it is given.
Ralph Moss, PhD, former Director of Information for Sloan Kettering Cancer
Research Center
Many medical oncologists recommend chemotherapy for virtually any tumor,
with a hopefulness undiscouraged by almost invariable failure.
Albert Braverman MD 1991 Lancet 1991 337 p 901
"Medical Oncology in the 90s"
”Best book I've ever read on chemotherapy.”
Ralph Moss' Questioning Chemotherapy is a book that every person faced with
cancer must read before submitting to toxic chemicals which may very well
destroy the body's immune system. Unlike many alternative health authors
who base their conclusions on anecdotal evidence, Moss uses the medical
establishment's own research to prove that in almost all instances
chemotherapy is NOT a viable approach to improving cancer survival rates.
Moss also makes the important point that current cancer research has never
bothered to examine the mental anguish, physical suffering, and poor
quality of life endured by almost everyone whose doctors talk or scare them
into undergoing chemotherapy. Learning about the economics behind
chemotherapy drives the final nail into the coffin of a "therapy" that
educated people in the future will consider outrageous and reflective of
the current dark ages of so-called modern medicine. This is a must read
book for anyone who wants to know the truth behind chemotherapy or anyone
whose doctor wants to inject toxic chemicals into their bloodstream.
Chet Day’s review of ”Questioning Chemotherapy: A Critique of the Use of
Toxic Drugs in the Treatment of Cancer” by Ralph W. Moss
[Question: "How in the world, Dr Moss, can [chemotherapy] be considered a
standard cure, when it works for 2-4 [percent of cancer patients], and very
specific ones?
Answer: We are dealing with an industry. It is not supported by the facts.
The way that it is done is this. The drugs are tested in test tubes, and
they look for things that will kill cells. After you have found something
that kills cells, cancer cells, cell lines which are very abnormal
non-typical sort of growths, maybe a new life form almost, then you put it
into animals. Then if it kills the cancers before it kills the animals, and
shrinks the tumours, you consider you have an active agent. You then put it
into people, and go through the 3 phases the FDA prescribes for this, and
basically if you can shrink the tumour 50% or more for 28 days you have got
the FDA's definition of an active drug. That is called a response rate, so
you have a response.. Quite a bit [different from a cure] because when you
look to see if there is any life prolongation from taking this treatment
what you find is all kinds of hocus pocus and song and dance about the
disease free survival, and this and that. In the end there is no proof that
chemotherapy in the vast majority of cases actually extends life, and this
is the GREAT LIE about chemotherapy, that somehow there is a correlation
between shrinking a tumour and extending the life of the patient. [Or that
there is a correlation between looking at a cancer cell in a test tube and
the tumour in someone's body.] What happens as you grow those cells in cell
lines they become very weird. Hundreds and hundreds of generations later
they don't even look like even normal human cancer cells. They are things
that grow under glass, immortal cells, unlike ... normal cancer cells. So
much cancer research is very questionable because it is based on this cell
line research.
Ralph Moss, PhD, former Director of Information for Sloan Kettering Cancer
Research Center
CHEMOTHERAPY: AN UNPROVEN PROCEDURE
How can that be true of the main cancer treatment in the U.S.? Fact is, no
solid scientific studies or clinical trials prove chemotherapy's
effectiveness, except in a small percentage of very rare types of cancer.
For solid tumors of adults, the vast majority of cancer, or anything that
has metastasized, chemotherapy just doesn't work.
A German epidemiologist from the Heidelberg/Mannheim Tumor Clinic, Dr.
Ulrich Abel has done a comprehensive review and analysis of every major
study and clinical trial of chemotherapy ever done. His conclusions should
be read by anyone who is about to embark on the Chemo Express. To make sure
he had reviewed everything ever published on chemotherapy, Abel sent
letters to over 350 medical centers around the world asking them to send
him anything they had published on the subject. Abel researched thousands
of articles: it is unlikely that anyone in the world knows more about
chemotherapy than he.
The analysis took him several years, but the results are astounding: Abel
found that the overall worldwide success rate of chemotherapy was
"appalling" because there was simply no scientific evidence available
anywhere that chemotherapy can "extend in any appreciable way the lives of
patients suffering from the most common organic cancers." Abel emphasizes
that chemotherapy rarely can improve the quality of life. He describes
chemotherapy as "a scientific wasteland" and states that at least 80
percent of chemotherapy administered throughout the world is worthless, and
is akin to the "emperor's new clothes" - neither doctor nor patient is
willing to give up on chemotherapy even though there is no scientific
evidence that it works! - Lancet 10 Aug 91 No mainstream media even
mentioned this comprehensive study: it was totally buried.
Tim O'Shea in TO THE CANCER PATIENT
When any chemotherapeutic drug is spilled in the hospital or anywhere en
route, it is classified as a major biohazard, requiring the specialists to
come and clean it up with their space-suits and all their strictly
regulated protocols. Yet this same agent is going to be put into the human
body and is expected to cure it of disease? What's wrong with this picture?
Tim O'Shea in TO THE CANCER PATIENT
...chemo drugs are some of the most toxic substances ever designed to go
into a human body, their effects are very serious, and are often the direct
cause of death. Like the case of Jackie Onassis, who underwent chemo for
one of the rare diseases in which it generally has some beneficial results:
non-Hodgkins lymphoma. She went into the hospital on Friday and was dead by
Tuesday.
Tim O'Shea in TO THE CANCER PATIENT
PROSTATE CANCER
is one of the worst areas of chemotherapy abuse, according to Norman
Zinner, MD. He states: "Most men with prostate cancer will die from other
illnesses never knowing they had the problem."
Hormones have been used as therapy since the 1940s, with no overall
improvement in survival. Early detection of prostate cancer has resulted in
thousands of men being treated for a condition that would have been
self-limiting. No figures are available for those who have died from the
side effects of treatment when the condition would never have caused any
problems or symptoms during the patient's entire lifetime...Some studies
show rates as high as 40% in autopsies of men over 70 in which prostate
cancer was discovered which the patient never knew about, and which was not
the cause of death. (American Cancer Society, 1995).
There are no randomized clinical trials proving that chemotherapy for
prostate cancer increases long term survival. Au contraire, a 1992 study
published in JAMA demonstrated that there was no difference in 10 year
survival rate between the men who did nothing at all and those who had
treatment. (Johansson)
Tim O'Shea in TO THE CANCER PATIENT
THE BI-PHASIC EFFECT: WHY CHEMO DOESN'T WORK
Every time we put a drug in our body, two things happen:
1. what the drug initially does to the body
2. how the body adapts to the drug
Any example will do. Antibiotics? First, the drug kills all bacteria in the
body. Then the body responds by growing them back, often with the bad
bacteria out of balance, which come back in more powerful, mutated forms.
Steroids? First, muscles are built because testosterone has been mimicked.
Then the body responds by cutting production of natural testosterone, which
eventually feminizes the athlete by shrinking the gonads... Obviously these
are simplifications, but you get the idea.
“Drugs tend to worsen whatever they're supposed to cure, which sets up a
vicious circle.” Dr. Dean Black in Health at the Crossroads p. 20
The Bi-Phasic Effect is well-explained by Dean Black and many other
researchers who were trying to figure out why tumors seemed to come back
with such a vengeance after chemotherapy. Some original work was done by
American Cancer Society researcher Robert Schimke in 1985, who discovered
that the way cancer cells resist chemotherapy is to replicate even harder
and faster. Chemo drugs are lethal; so the cancer cells are stimulated to
try and survive any way they can, which means faster growth. In the
presence of any toxin, cells will resist it to stay alive. The more they
resist, the stronger they get. Black sees cancer itself is just an
adaptation; a normal response to an abnormal poison. Chemotherapy simply
provokes adaptation. (Black, p. 45) This is why we all know people who have
had chemotherapy and experienced temporary remission. But when the tumor
came back, it did so with a vengeance, and the patient was quickly overwhelmed.
Schimke talks about the possible effects chemotherapy might have on a tumor
that otherwise may have been self-limiting:
"Might such treatments convert relatively benign tumors into more lethal
forms?" Robert Schimke p. 1915
Think about this the next time you hear an oncologist talk about "mopping
up" with powerful chemo drugs just to be sure we "got it all." Or
prescribing powerful chemotherapy for a "pre-cancerous" or even a benign
situation.
To understand the bi-phasic effect, one begins to realize that drugs are
fighting the body. The whole military motif - medicine imposes its will
upon the body, even though we have vastly incomplete information to be
doing something that arrogant.
Tim O'Shea in TO THE CANCER PATIENT
Because of the problem of nausea and vomiting caused by cancer itself as
well as many chemotherapy agents and/or radiation therapy, many cancer
patients develop anorexia - the loss of appetite or desire to eat. This
situation is not good at all because it can lead to a condition known as
cancer "cachexia" - a wasting syndrome characterized by weakness and a
noticeable continuous loss of weight, fat, and muscle. It is estimated that
roughly 40% of cancer patients actually die of malnutrition rather than
their disease itself.
http://doctormurray.com/articles/chemotherapy.htm
If your friend touches chemotherapy, he's a goner.
Chemotherapy expert Ernst Wynder, former professor at Sloan-Kettering
Hospital and recipient of a medal from the American Cancer Association, in
a warning to a friend of professor Gearin-Tosh who healed himself of one of
the most lethal cancers known using natural means.
Why so much use of chemotherapy if it does so little good? Well for one
thing, drug companies provide huge economic incentives. In 1990, $3.53
billion was spent on chemotherapy. By 1994 that figure had more than
doubled to $7.51 billion. This relentless increase in chemotherapy use was
accompanied by a relentless increase in cancer deaths.
”Chemotherapy Report”
