some reason modern medicine has itself turned a corner and entered
a darkness and is now committing crimes against humanity unequalled
in the history of our race."
--Dr. Mark Sircus
Alternative Cancer Treatments
by DIANNE JACOBS THOMPSON (under
1979 Around January of that year, I went
home to die.
I was diagnosed with stage 2 stomach cancer, chronic bronchitis,
acutely infected ovarian cysts, arthritis, sciatica, low thyroid,
anemia and a heart condition. Besides that I had chronic ear infections
and long-standing clinical depression. The late Dr.
Harold Dick, N.D., known as a "naturopathic oncology pioneer"
cured me in 5 weeks. It required the diagnosis (the Carroll
Food Test) of digestive enzyme
deficiency food intolerances which most people have and few
know about, and it also identified the primary tissue
salt deficiency, along with treatment with glandular
protomorphogens to restore glandular health, and Constitutional
Hydrotherapy to bring about detoxification, to stimulate blood
circulation and the activity of the vital organs and to jump-start
the immune system. It turned out to be the basic foundation of the
most successful healing system I've ever witnessed.
1986 My 5-year-old daughter was forcibly vaccinated
and immediately developed a flesh-eating
infection so virulent that my husband and I became infected
from contact. Naturopathic medicine brought us back from the brink.
Later that year
we were introduced to escharotic
cancer salves and treated a dog tumor, my husband's cirrhosis
of the liver, various skin lesions, moles, fungal infections, and
a lump in my thigh. It eventually
helped clear up the remaining symptoms from my husband's flesh-eating
infection after he was forced to submit to antibiotic treatment
which made a mess of it. There was much more, gallbladder
problems in 1999, adrenal
deficiency 2001, injury in 2002, arthritis,
diabetes, and other issues between
2003-2012, including glaucoma--cured.
why I research and write about alternative medicine. It's a debt.
treatments for cancer, chronic-degerative disease, infection, stress,
harmful emotions and other disorders and conditions;
junk science and bad medicine, including unsafe and ineffective vaccines
and undiagnosed medical conditions mimicking child abuse and Shaken Baby
site provides starting points. The rest of the journey must be yours.
"Truth wears no mask, seeks neither place nor
bows to no human shrine; she only asks a hearing"
ON CANCER" FRAUD
(I neglected to get a link to the source of this article--DJT)
From an economic perspective, the American Cancer Industry (1) has the
perfect business model. Chemical and pharmaceutical companies make immense
profits from selling carcinogenic chemicals that enter, or are intentionally
put into, our food, water, air, clothing or housing (2), then make another
immense profit by manufacturing and selling expensive, inefficient and
toxic drugs to treat the cancers and other diseases promoted by their
own products, not to mention the additional drugs to make the side-effects
of the primary drugs bearable.
To make the scam perfect, they let the taxpayer fund their
research into new ways to not cure cancer while still selling the resulting
drugs at obscene profits. To ensure that the public remains blissfully
unaware of the true facts concerning cancer, they have set up front groups
like the American Cancer Society to spread disinformation in the name
of cancer education, while their puppet agency in government, the FDA,
is fighting an aggressive turf war to keep effective alternative treatments
off the market.
Ralph Nader gets it partially right when he writes (3),
"The pharmaceutical industry is adept at promoting the idea that
the rising drug prices in the U.S. are the result of the companies' research
expenditures. But the hard numbers don't support this transparent public
"The drug industry likes to claim that high prices are needed to
pay for research and development, but these price increases have much
more to do with corporate profits than the research costs for these drugs
that occurred many years ago," the executive director of Families
USA Ron Pollock says.
In fact, the pharmaceutical industry is the most profitable industry in
the nation. Profit margins in the industry in 2000 were four times the
average of Fortune 500 companies. And the compensation packages for drug
company executives are lavish. (..)
The pharmaceutical industry's claims about its research and development
expenditures are diminished by the fact that the federal government has
given the industry generous packages of tax credits, massive taxpayer-funded
R&D support by the National Institutes of Health, and other federal
agencies, subsidized loans from the Export-Import Bank of the United States,
and R&D monopoly patent extensions.
In 1998, the US Government spent $2.4 billion on cancer research, and
well-meaning volunteers who have been brainwashed by the cancer industry's
propaganda (which says that throwing money at the problem is the solution),
pharma lobbyists and doctors are still calling for more. But research
spending is nothing compared to profits made from ineffective and dangerous
treatments. Dr. Mercola writes, "The economics of cancer treatment
are astounding. Cancer treatment is close to $100 billion annually ($100,000,000,000).
The chemotherapy part of that by 1995 will be up to $8.5 billion. Looking
from another angle: the Bristol Myers company owns patents on twelve of
the nearly forty "FDA-approved" chemotherapeutic drugs. The
president, past president, chairman of the board, and a couple of the
directors of Bristol Myers all hold positions on the board at Memorial
Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. (..)
We are obviously losing ground with conventional cancer treatment, because
the death rates keep going up. The reason for this is because conventional
treatment is based on a faulty standard: That the body must be purged
of cancer by aggressive and toxic methods such as surgery chemotherapy
and radiation therapy. This, of course, seemed reasonable back in 1894
when William Halsted, M.D. did the first radical mastectomy, but it has
proven to be so wrong over the last 50 years that continuing to adhere
to it constitutes more fraud than honest mistake. However, this standard
still dominates conventional cancer therapy, and until that changes, we
will continue to lose ground with cancer.
But most people have been so brainwashed by the cancer propaganda, they
think the war on cancer is being won. To solidify public support and to
capitalize on it at the same time, the cancer industry operates front
groups posing as humanitarian non-profits and educational societies.
The most well known such group is the extremely wealthy American Cancer
Society. This phony charity (4) 4 plays the "blame the victim game"
by emphasizing personal responsibility for diet and lifestyle to the exclusion
of environmental carcinogens produced by its wealthy industrial sponsors.
In a 1999 paper that made #3 on Project Censored's 2000 list of most important
stories ignored by the mass media, Samuel Epstein writes (4)
A 1992 article in the Wall Street Journal, by Thomas diLorenzo, professor
of economics at Loyola college and veteran investigator of nonprofit organizations,
revealed that the Texas affiliate of the ACS owned more than $11 million
worth of assets in land and real estate, as well as more than 56 vehicles,
including 11 Ford Crown Victorias for senior executives and 45 other cars
assigned to staff members. Arizona's ACS chapter spent less than 10 percent
of its funds on direct community cancer services. In California, the figure
was 11 percent, and under 9 percent in Missouri. (..) Most of the funds
raised by the ACS go to pay overhead salaries, fringe benefits and travel
expenses of its national executives in Atlanta. They also go to pay chief
executive officers who earn six-figure salaries in several states, and
the hundreds of other employees who work out of some 3,000 regional offices
Epstein then discusses the ACS's track record of sabotaging environmental
and consumer protection efforts. Highlights include: In 1992, in conjunction
with the NCI, the ACS aggressively launched a "chemoprevention"
program aimed at recruiting 16,000 healthy women at supposedly "high
risk'' of breast cancer into a 5-year clinical trial with a highly profitable
drug called tamoxifen. This drug is manufactured by one of the world's
most powerful cancer drug industries, Zeneca, an offshoot of the Imperial
Chemical Industries.. The women were told that the drug was essentially
harmless, and that it could reduce their risk of breast cancer. What the
women were not told was that tamoxifen had already been shown to be a
highly potent liver carcinogen in rodent tests, and also that it was well-known
to induce human uterine cancer.
In 1993, just before PBS Frontline aired the special entitled, "In
Our Children's Food," the ACS came out in support of the pesticide
industry. In a damage-control memorandum sent to some forty-eight regional
divisions, the ACS trivialized pesticides as a cause of childhood cancer,
and reassured the public that carcinogenic pesticide residues in food
are safe, even for babies. When the media and concerned citizens called
local ACS chapters, they received reassurances from an ACS memorandum
by its Vice President for Public Relations: "The primary health hazards
of pesticides are from direct contact with the chemicals at potentially
high doses, for example, farm workers who apply the chemicals and work
in the fields after the pesticides have been applied, and people living
near aerially sprayed fields... The American Cancer Society believes that
the benefits of a balanced diet rich in fruits and vegetables far outweigh
the largely theoretical risks posed by occasional, very low pesticide
residue levels in foods."
Another high-profile cancer scam is "National Breast Cancer Awareness
Month" which promotes mammography for all women over the age of 20
(!) as a means of preventing breast cancer, even though mammography is
ineffective, dangerous and due to the x-rays causes breast cancer in the
long run7, and safe and better alternatives for screening exist. The principal
sponsor of NBCAM is Zeneca, which makes the breast cancer drug tamoxifen6
and is also a manufacturer of industrial chemicals known to cause breast
cancer 4. Other sponsors include mammography providers and equipment manufacturers.
Sadly, but not surprisingly given the corporate media's non-existent critical
coverage, this group's self-serving annual declaration of October as "national
breast cancer awareness month" and of October 19th as "National
Mammography Day" enjoys widespread public support. Legions of well-meaning
volunteers "race for the cure", "run for hope", sell
t-shirts and pink ribbons, and don't realize that they've been had by
an industry welfare stunt that will ensure only one thing: that breast
cancer rates will continue to climb.
Barbara Ehrenreich puts it succinctly in a recent speech:
But by ignoring or under emphasizing the issue of environmental causes,
the pink-ribbon crowd function as willing dupes of what could be called
the Cancer Industrial Complex: by which I mean the multinational corporate
enterprise which with the one hand doles out carcinogens and disease and,
with the other, offers expensive, semi-toxic, pharmaceutical treatments.
No profitable business will ever try to eliminate itself. The cancer establishment,
a cartel consisting of the NIH, the NCI, the American Cancer Society,
the FDA, the AMA and the pharmaceutical industry survives and thrives
by perpetually searching for "The Cure" but never finding it.
Effective prevention of cancer, or cheap, effective cures (both exist,
but are being suppresed8) are anathema to its own survival instincts.
This multi-billion dollar juggernaut is simply not interested in finding
a cure, unless that cure consists of patented drugs that can be sold at
a premium and patients need to take it for the rest of their lives.
Ralph W. Moss, author of The Cancer Industry10 writes about the suppressed
cancer treatment of Dr. William Coley, "What shocked me most was
that this promising treatment was unavailable in the United States. We
had launched a "war on cancer," but one which seemed focused
on finding new patentable drugs rather than exploring therapies with the
greatest potential, regardless of their origins. Was it possible, I wondered,
that Coley's toxins had been neglected because they were unpatentable
and too darn cheap to make money for drug companies? Many insiders hinted
as much. "
Daniel Haley, a former member of the New York State Legislature and author
of the book Politics in Healing: The Suppression and Manipulation of American
Medicine11 relates the following suppression story: "Just how far
we have regressed in treating cancer becomes apparent when we review the
story of Dr. William F. Koch (pronounced "Coke") of Detroit,
who was curing cancer with one shot in the 1930s and 40s. Koch had theorized
that cancer formed as a result of a metabolic defect brought on by a toxin
or injury and related to an inability to burn off such toxins. His anti-toxin,
*glyoxylide, made use of an oxidizing catalyst to burn
off toxins that might otherwise become cancerous. This writer personally
knows one such former patient. Now 50 and quite healthy, she had been
diagnosed--at the tender age of three months--with terminal liver cancer.
It took just one shot of Dr. Koch's glyoxylide to cause the tumor to disappear
in six months.
The JAMA denounced Koch as a quack after he refused to sell his protocol
to the AMA. At the instigation of the AMA, the FDA put him on trial in
1942 and 1946. They did not succeed in getting a conviction, but neither
could Dr. Koch secure an acquittal: in the atmosphere of the U.S. struggle
against the Nazis, some jurors could not conceive that their government
was lying. When the FDA finally dismissed the indictment in 1948, Dr.
Koch lost little time moving to Brazil before the FDA could trump up another
indictment. He never revealed his manufacturing process. Dr. Koch's one-shot
cancer therapy died with him. Today researchers have shown the value of
many oxygen-yielding protocols (such as hydrogen peroxide and ozone therapy)
for treating various disease processes. "
Haley concludes, "In a free market, where non-toxic therapies can
openly compete with toxic therapies, and information is not suppressed,
consumers will make informed choices. This is exactly what the pharmaceutical
companies don't want. Dancing to their tune, the FDA ferociously keeps
off the market effective, nontoxic therapies that might provide formidable
competition for patented, and often toxic, pharmaceutical drugs. By keeping
these therapies off the market, the FDA is not protecting the public from
harm. It is protecting the pharmaceutical companies from effective competition.
With an average of 65% to 75% of FDA employees working for drug companies
upon their retirement, that's not surprising. Lancet editor Richard Horton
wrote, "The FDA is not only compromised because it receives so much
funding from industry but because it comes under incredible Congressional
pressure to be favorable to industry. That has led to deaths."
Many other promising cancer treatments have been created in the 20th century,
and then lost again due to suppression, such as the machines of Rife and
Priore. But this information does not reach the ivory towers of biomedical
research. The barrier of "scientific bigotry" that separates
mainstream cancer research from reality remains intact. A recent Scientific
American article on angiogenesis concludes with a typical mission statement:9:
Perhaps, as safe oral antiangiogenic drugs are developed and become available,
cancer patients will be able to take "a pill a day to keep the cancer
away." If so, forms of cancer that are currently untreatable will
be reduced to chronic health problems similar to hypertension or diabetes,
and many more people will be able to live long satisfying lives.
The article of course forgets to mention the long, satisfying profits
that this damage-control approach of treating the symptoms and ignoring
the causes will produce for the pharma industry.
The defenders of the status quo predictably dismiss cancer dissidents
as cranks, and their arguments as quackery, pseudo-science, fear mongering,
and environmental radicalism. As far as prevention is concerned, they
perpetually hide behind the smokescreen of the safe dose, parroting the
chemical industry mantra that below a certain dose, a toxin can do no
harm. What they of course neglect to take into account is that in everyday
life, we are exposed to small amounts of tens of thousands of such toxins
whose interactions and synergies in the body are far too complex to be
ever understood theoretically. Even if a safe dose existed separately
for each compound, it is clear that exposure to all these "safe"
doses at once is not safe at all. Concerning treatment, conventional medical
wisdom maintains that "cut-burn-and-poison" is the state of
the art of cancer treatment, and that the only hope for improvement lies
in new pharmaceuticals drugs.
In conclusion, the "war on cancer" is one of the most costly
frauds (both in terms of money and human suffering) that has ever been
perpetrated on the public. Appalling amounts of money have been spent
in its pursuit, but the oncological emperor is naked. True and effective
cancer prevention is possible today, but would require radical public
policy changes according to the principle of unsafe until proven safe
(by independent, non industry-funded research), which are not likely to
happen in a world where the public good has been hijacked by economic
special interests. "The Cure" will similarly continue to prove
elusive since economic interests dictate that it has to come in the form
of a patentable pharmaceutical agent, a priori excluding natural remedies
and non-chemical treatments that have been used successfully to treat
• Campaign for Truth in Medicine
• They Say That Vitamin C Can Increase the Risk of Cancer
• Cancer Prevention Coalition
• Redflagsweekly.com: Cancer
• The Moss Reports - Alternative Cancer Treatments
• The Man Who Questions Chemotherapy : Dr. Ralph Moss
• Nutritional Supplementation For Cancer, Part 1 by Stephen Byrnes,
 The term "cancer industry" has been coined to refer to the
network of corporate polluters, manufacturers of both carcinogens and
cancer drugs, professional medical organizations, national research centers,
industry front groups and political lobbying groups that work together
to insure that the public thinks of cancer exclusively as an accident
that cannot be prevented (as in breast cancer) or a lifestyle disease
that only the individual is responsible for.
 Chemical Industry Archives: Fact and Fiction
Chemical Industry Archives: The Inside Story
Trade Secrets Documentary: The Problem
 Medicare Nightmare by Ralph Nader, July 25, 2001
 American Cancer Society: The world's wealthiest "nonprofit"
institution by Samuel S. Epstein, International Journal Of Health Services
29 (3): 565-578 1999
Abstract: The American Cancer Society is fixated on damage control-diagnosis
and treatment-and basic molecular biology, with indifference or even hostility
to cancer prevention. This myopic mindset is compounded by interlocking
conflicts of interest with the cancer drug, mammography, and other industries.
The "nonprofit" status of the Society is in sharp conflict with
its high overhead and expenses, excessive reserves of assets and contributions
to political parties. All attempts to reform the Society over the past
two decades have failed; a national economic boycott of the Society is
 Greenaction Cancer Industry Tour 1999
 Greenaction Stop Cancer Where It Starts! Home Page
 Breast Cancer Awareness: Looking behind the smokescreen
Are medical x-rays a major cause of cancer and heart disease?
 The Other War on Drugs by Daniel Haley
Priore's Healing Machine - An Electromagnetic Cure for Cancer
 Controlling Capillary Growth, Scientific American December 2001, p.45
 Ralph W. Moss, The Cancer Industry : The Classic Expose on the Cancer
 Daniel Haley, Politics in Healing : The Suppression & Manipulation
of American Medicine
Thompson Est. 2003
The Misdiagnosis of
"Shaken Baby Syndrome" --an unproven theory without scientific
support, now in disrepute and wreaking legal and medical havoc world-wide
Author publication: NEXUS MAGAZINE "Seawater--A
Safe Blood Plasma Substitute?"
The material on this site is for informational and educational
purposes only. Please consult with your health care provider for treatment
Fight Spam! Click Here!