Chemo + Therapy? Hardly. Toxic chemicals are not therapy for disease. Do not be brainwashed into believing that fallacy. It is an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms.
"The One-Minute Cure: The Secret to Healing Virtually all Diseases" by Madison Cavanaugh refers to the Pharmaceutical industry as a cartel: "a group of businesses that collude to limit competition within an industry or market." (Wiktionary 1/31/10).
Very simple natural cures that have been used for over 160 years in the Far East have been suppressed by the pharmaceutical-medical complex (recall the military-industrial complex implicated in the JFK assassination? A similar dynamic is at work here). This is a chemical conspiracy driven hard by the pharmaceutical cartel. Just try watching your TV at night without viewing a single drug ad--impossible! This cartel is in your living room every night, convincing you that you are ill, and that you need to buy their products. Do what I do: hit the mute button or leave the room.
We, the people, do not need to buy these drugs. We, the people, need to unite to fight for our health freedom. When I was growing up, I was taught that censorship and suppression was prevalent in Communist Russia, but America was the "Land of the Free". Apparently not so. As we Baby Boomers age out and experience various health issues, we are more and more susceptible to health information and health care suppression. We need to protest this suppression, just as we protested the Vietnam War and Watergate.
Did you know that seven (7) states have "Health Freedom Laws"? NM, AZ, LA, RI, CA, MN, OK. NOT New York. Why do we need laws to guarantee and protect our right to Health Freedom? That is very telling in itself.
The National Health Freedom Coalition's mission is below:
"To promote access to all health care information, services, treatments and products that the people deem beneficial for their own health, healing, well-being and survival; and to promote the health of the people of this nation.
Consumers are in jeopardy of losing access to holistic health care practitioners. Medical doctors, dentists, homeopaths, naturopaths, and alternative practitioners across the country are being harassed, investigated, and detained for their actions!
Why? Because practitioners are presenting a health care option to consumers that is different from conventional medicine and are practicing a holistic approach that involves natural substances and techniques. Because of restrictive state practitioner laws, these individuals can lose their licenses or be prosecuted for practicing medicine without a license.
Access to dietary supplements, health care products and devices is at risk. Manufacturer’s are investigated by federal agencies such as FDA and FTC or local authorities for making health claims for products that are therapeutic in nature, even when the claims are truthful and not misleading. This censorship must stop.
Global guidelines and trade agreements are being passed that will impact our access to many products that we appreciate and depend on for maintaining our health.
National Health Freedom Coalition works to protect the right of all people to access their favorite health care practitioners and health care products, as well as to protect the right to access many other healing arts services that really resonate with people’s path to wellness!"
(http://www.nationalhealthfreedom.org/)
JUST SAY NO TO CHEMO!
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Tribute to Taylor
Today is my dear friend Taylor's birthday. She would have been 59 today. I dedicate this blogspot to her.
To Taylor, on your birthday, with love and gratitude.
The following are the eulogies I delivered, one at her funeral, and one at her memorial service. Taylor battled chemotherapy, and told me towards the end of her battle that she had "2 days in the past year and a half when she felt OK, not great, not even good, but just 'OK'". The rest of the time she "felt like shit".
"Known and Little-known Facts about Janet Boylan Taylor Rizzolo by her Former Roommate"
In the fall of 1975, Janet Taylor came up to me at the Wine Cellar and said, “I hear you’re looking for a roommate, do you want to move in together.” I had not met Taylor until that very moment, but nevertheless said OK. When I told my brother Jack that I was moving in with Taylor, he said, “Uh, I don’t think that’s a very good idea.” Although Jack was friends with Taylor, I was his little sister, and Taylor was, well, way too cool for his little sister. Despite Jack’s advice, I moved in with Taylor, and my life changed. He did check up frequently, and found that everything was cool. Taylor loved to have a lot of people around, all the time, all hours of the day & night, but not too early in the morning. The hours between 4am & noon were hers, and it was never a good idea to disturb her then. She made a mean Cobb Salad. I had never heard of Cobb Salad before, but it was mean, and it was good on a hot summer evening. She loved to make her chili, and she loved to make everyone eat it. And I did, although I picked out the beans & she said that was the best part. She loved Bonnie Raitt before anyone else even heard of Bonnie Raitt. She loved all her friends and talked about them constantly. Janet loved her family. She was a wonderful mother to Jason and Matt, a great aunt, and a great “2nd Mom” to Matt’s friends. She loved to drive and really was a great driver. She borrowed my Chrysler Newport once and had an accident while stopping to pick up a hitchhiker. Ironically, I had to hitch to work later that night. She was a great Scrabble player & called me on flipping over a letter to turn it into a blank. She was also a great chess player and beat me many times, the first time to my great surprise. Taylor also loved to garden, and planted a little plot of land, growing tomatoes, cucumbers, and peppers, in exchange for keeping the books for the property owner. When Taylor met Stan while working at the Scranton Mental Health Center, his life changed. And so did hers. She loved her life with Stan. We skied. I taught her how, and she excelled. We played tennis, she kicked my butt. We golfed, she kicked my butt. She loved to turn people onto golf, loved running the annual tournament at her club, and she loved winning trophies. I attributed her excellence in sports to an uncanny eye-hand coordination resulting from the childhood fishing accident she recounted which ended with a fish hook in her eye, months of recuperation and near loss of eyesight, and the childhood nickname of “hook-eye”. Hook-eye was just one of many nicknames, “Little General”, “Dorothy Lollier”, “Tricon” (her alias when ordering a late night Texas Weiner), and always, of course, Taylor. Taylor loved Tony Hardings Texas Weiners & Green Ridge pizza. By her own admission, Taylor was a great dancer & a great painter. She did a great impersonation of Howard Cosell. She loved nothing more than to run the show, to be in charge, and she was great at it. She also loved to turn everybody onto something, commanding “Taste this—this is the best sauce in the whole world”. She loved concerts. We once saw The Who in the City & she & Gene left before the encore because Gene said The Who never plays encores. So they froze outside while we rocked on inside & Taylor never let Gene forget that. The most important thing to Taylor was kindness to others, and I learned this early on in our friendship. She was the only person I know who, when in the City, not only would not curse & spit at the squeegee guys, but who actually tipped them, saying “they have to make a living too”. She once told me a story about a woman who sat next to her on a plane, and the woman had such a sad story that Taylor gave her some money. I said, Taylor, that’s the oldest scam in the book, and she said “No, I really don’t think so”. Taylor was never the same after her mother & Jason, there was always a deep sadness. The only thing in life that kept her holding on was the fact that Matthew was going to be born. She endured the terrible constant itching & the life inside her sustained her until she finally announced “he’s out”. Matthew was true to the meaning of his name, “gift from God”. She loved this child. She was very proud of Matt, especially when he became an umpire. When she became ill, she only wanted to see him go to his prom. She fretted about him being kind to other people, much the same way she did with me. She came to visit and insisted that I drive her new car. My first question, of course living in NY, was “where’s the horn”. She said “You don’t need to know that, why would you want to beep the horn at anyone.” So I think as I reflect back on over 30 years, that the most important thing that Taylor wanted to teach us, her family, her husband, her son, her friends, is to be kind. That is all that ever mattered to her. We all have stories of Janet’s kindness to others, to strangers. Within that act of pure kindness is a lesson to us. She was teaching us, showing us how to be kind. And she expects that her lessons won’t be lost on us.
Taylor was a great communicator. She loved to talk, preferably in person and preferably in the pre-dawn hours, and as her family and friends got older & found it more difficult to stay awake with her, she referred to the last person standing as her “victim”. And if you’ve ever been her victim, you know that you had a long, very long, meaningful, sometimes not, conversation which you paid for dearly the next day. She also loved to talk on the phone, and thus the word ‘telephonitis’. A phone call would last at least an hour. She loved to laugh, had a great wit, and loved life. During her illness she was more concerned about Bridgie than about herself. And she was very appreciative of Patty’s caring for her, lovingly referring to her as the “warden”. And that was Taylor. To borrow her phrase, “I know this is really corny, but I mean it”…Our world is a better place because she was here; our lives are richer because she chose us. She was tough, brave, cool & had a great heart and a great capacity to love and forgive. One last thing—Taylor’s trademark expression was “that’s cool” & that was way before today’s expression of “cool”. Taylor was the trendsetter, she was the “little general”, she was a wonderful friend to us all. She was cool, but most of all, she was kind. She is happy now with her mother and Jason and many relatives, having a big family reunion, and with friends Jack and Kevin.
In the words of Springsteen,
“May your strength give us strength,
may your faith give us faith,
may your hope give us hope,
may your love give us love.”
Rock on Taylor. We love you. Peace.
Eulogy
2/20/2006
Scranton, PA
Life with Janet Teighlor Rizzolo
The one common thread that unites everyone here in this room is the love that Janet Teighlor Rizzolo had for all of us, and the love we all have for her. She saw something in each one of us, and she made each one of us feel very special and very loved. Teighlor thrived on always having a lot of people around, all the time, all hours of the day & night, but not too early in the morning. She loved all her friends. She loved her family deeply. She was a wonderful mother to Jason and Matt, a great aunt, and a great “2nd Mom” to Matt’s friends. She loved her life with Stan. She was tremendously proud of Matt. She loved to ski. She loved to golf, but she really loved to turn people onto golf, loved running the annual Ladies’ Invitational tournament here at her club, and she loved winning trophies. The most important thing to Teighlor was kindness to others, and we all learned this early on in our relationships with Teighlor. As I reflect back on life with Teighlor, I realize that the most important thing that she wanted to teach us, her family, her husband, her son, her friends, is to be kind. That is all that ever mattered to her. We all have stories of Janet’s kindness to others, to strangers. Within that act of pure kindness is a lesson to us. She was teaching us, showing us how to be kind. And she expects that her lessons won’t be lost on us.
Teighlor was a great communicator. She loved to talk, preferably in person, but she also loved to talk on the phone--a phone call would last at least an hour. She also loved to send chain letter emails, which I would normally delete, but I always saved hers. Here is one of them:
I wish you enough…
> >
> >Recently, I overheard a father & daughter saying their good byes at
> >the airport. They had announced her plane's departure and standing
> >near the security gate, they hugged and he said, "I love you. I wish you
> >enough."
> >
> >She said, "Daddy, I wish you enough, too." They kissed and she left
> >to board her plane. He walked over toward the window where I was
> >seated.
> >
> >"When you were saying good bye I heard you say 'I wish you enough'."
> >"May I ask what that means???" He began to smile. "That's a wish
> >that has been handed down from other generations. My parents used to
> >say it to everyone."
> >
> >He paused for a moment, and looking up as if trying to remember it
> >in detail, he smiled even more. "When we said 'I wish you enough',
> >we wanted the other person to have a life filled with enough good
> >things to sustain them," he continued and then turning toward me, he
> >shared the following as if he were reciting it from memory:
> >
> >"I wish you enough sun to keep your attitude bright. I wish you
> >enough rain to appreciate the sun more. I wish you enough happiness
> >to keep your spirit alive. I wish you enough pain so that the
> >smallest joys in life appear much bigger. I wish you enough gain to
> >satisfy your wanting. I wish you enough loss to appreciate all that you possess.
> >I wish you enough "Hello's" to get you through the final "Good bye".
> >He then walked away.
> >
> >My friends and loved ones, I wish you enough!
> >
> >"I wish for you..."
> >
> >Comfort on difficult days, Smiles when sadness intrudes, Rainbows to
> >follow the clouds, Laughter to kiss your lips, Sunsets to warm your
> >heart, Gentle hugs when spirits sag, Friendships to brighten your
> >being, Beauty for your eyes to see, Confidence for when you doubt,
> >Faith so that you can believe, Courage to know yourself, Patience to
> >accept the truth, And love to complete your life.
> >
> >I WISH YOU ENOUGH!!!
> >
> >
Teighlor had so much love in her life, that her life was complete. We who are left behind feel that her life was completed way too soon. We are hurting because we all love her and miss her so much. She loved to laugh, had a great wit, and loved life. Her life was devoted to making people smile and laugh. She would not want us to be sad. We are here to celebrate her life, and in that celebration, her spirit lives on through our memories of her. One of the songs at Teighlor’s funeral was Bridge over Troubled Water, which is really the perfect song for her.
"When you're weary, feeling small
When tears are in your eyes, I will dry them all
I'm on your side, oh, when times get rough
And friends just can't be found
Like a bridge over troubled water
I will lay me down
Like a bridge over troubled water
I will lay me down
When you're down and out
When you're on the street
When evening falls so hard
I will comfort you (ooh)
I'll take your part, oh, when darkness comes
And pain is all around
Like a bridge over troubled water
I will lay me down
Like a bridge over troubled water
I will lay me down
Sail on silver girl
Sail on by
Your time has come to shine
All your dreams are on their way
See how they shine
Oh, if you need a friend
I'm sailing right behind
Like a bridge over troubled water
I will ease your mind
Like a bridge over troubled water
I will ease your mind".
When we think of Teighlor, think of her life, not her death, and don’t feel sad, feel happy that we had such a special spirit here with us to love and who loved us. Think of Teighlor and do what she would do: talk to a stranger, call a friend, make someone smile or laugh, recognize opportunities to be kind to someone and then, dammit, be kind to someone. In this way, Teighlor will live on.
To use her phrase, “I know this is really corny, but I mean it”…Our world is a better place because she was here; our lives are richer because she chose us. She was tough, brave, fun & had a great heart and a great capacity to love and forgive. She was a wonderful friend to us all.
But most of all, she was kind.
March, 2006
Memorial Service
Bridgewater, NJ
To Taylor, on your birthday, with love and gratitude.
The following are the eulogies I delivered, one at her funeral, and one at her memorial service. Taylor battled chemotherapy, and told me towards the end of her battle that she had "2 days in the past year and a half when she felt OK, not great, not even good, but just 'OK'". The rest of the time she "felt like shit".
"Known and Little-known Facts about Janet Boylan Taylor Rizzolo by her Former Roommate"
In the fall of 1975, Janet Taylor came up to me at the Wine Cellar and said, “I hear you’re looking for a roommate, do you want to move in together.” I had not met Taylor until that very moment, but nevertheless said OK. When I told my brother Jack that I was moving in with Taylor, he said, “Uh, I don’t think that’s a very good idea.” Although Jack was friends with Taylor, I was his little sister, and Taylor was, well, way too cool for his little sister. Despite Jack’s advice, I moved in with Taylor, and my life changed. He did check up frequently, and found that everything was cool. Taylor loved to have a lot of people around, all the time, all hours of the day & night, but not too early in the morning. The hours between 4am & noon were hers, and it was never a good idea to disturb her then. She made a mean Cobb Salad. I had never heard of Cobb Salad before, but it was mean, and it was good on a hot summer evening. She loved to make her chili, and she loved to make everyone eat it. And I did, although I picked out the beans & she said that was the best part. She loved Bonnie Raitt before anyone else even heard of Bonnie Raitt. She loved all her friends and talked about them constantly. Janet loved her family. She was a wonderful mother to Jason and Matt, a great aunt, and a great “2nd Mom” to Matt’s friends. She loved to drive and really was a great driver. She borrowed my Chrysler Newport once and had an accident while stopping to pick up a hitchhiker. Ironically, I had to hitch to work later that night. She was a great Scrabble player & called me on flipping over a letter to turn it into a blank. She was also a great chess player and beat me many times, the first time to my great surprise. Taylor also loved to garden, and planted a little plot of land, growing tomatoes, cucumbers, and peppers, in exchange for keeping the books for the property owner. When Taylor met Stan while working at the Scranton Mental Health Center, his life changed. And so did hers. She loved her life with Stan. We skied. I taught her how, and she excelled. We played tennis, she kicked my butt. We golfed, she kicked my butt. She loved to turn people onto golf, loved running the annual tournament at her club, and she loved winning trophies. I attributed her excellence in sports to an uncanny eye-hand coordination resulting from the childhood fishing accident she recounted which ended with a fish hook in her eye, months of recuperation and near loss of eyesight, and the childhood nickname of “hook-eye”. Hook-eye was just one of many nicknames, “Little General”, “Dorothy Lollier”, “Tricon” (her alias when ordering a late night Texas Weiner), and always, of course, Taylor. Taylor loved Tony Hardings Texas Weiners & Green Ridge pizza. By her own admission, Taylor was a great dancer & a great painter. She did a great impersonation of Howard Cosell. She loved nothing more than to run the show, to be in charge, and she was great at it. She also loved to turn everybody onto something, commanding “Taste this—this is the best sauce in the whole world”. She loved concerts. We once saw The Who in the City & she & Gene left before the encore because Gene said The Who never plays encores. So they froze outside while we rocked on inside & Taylor never let Gene forget that. The most important thing to Taylor was kindness to others, and I learned this early on in our friendship. She was the only person I know who, when in the City, not only would not curse & spit at the squeegee guys, but who actually tipped them, saying “they have to make a living too”. She once told me a story about a woman who sat next to her on a plane, and the woman had such a sad story that Taylor gave her some money. I said, Taylor, that’s the oldest scam in the book, and she said “No, I really don’t think so”. Taylor was never the same after her mother & Jason, there was always a deep sadness. The only thing in life that kept her holding on was the fact that Matthew was going to be born. She endured the terrible constant itching & the life inside her sustained her until she finally announced “he’s out”. Matthew was true to the meaning of his name, “gift from God”. She loved this child. She was very proud of Matt, especially when he became an umpire. When she became ill, she only wanted to see him go to his prom. She fretted about him being kind to other people, much the same way she did with me. She came to visit and insisted that I drive her new car. My first question, of course living in NY, was “where’s the horn”. She said “You don’t need to know that, why would you want to beep the horn at anyone.” So I think as I reflect back on over 30 years, that the most important thing that Taylor wanted to teach us, her family, her husband, her son, her friends, is to be kind. That is all that ever mattered to her. We all have stories of Janet’s kindness to others, to strangers. Within that act of pure kindness is a lesson to us. She was teaching us, showing us how to be kind. And she expects that her lessons won’t be lost on us.
Taylor was a great communicator. She loved to talk, preferably in person and preferably in the pre-dawn hours, and as her family and friends got older & found it more difficult to stay awake with her, she referred to the last person standing as her “victim”. And if you’ve ever been her victim, you know that you had a long, very long, meaningful, sometimes not, conversation which you paid for dearly the next day. She also loved to talk on the phone, and thus the word ‘telephonitis’. A phone call would last at least an hour. She loved to laugh, had a great wit, and loved life. During her illness she was more concerned about Bridgie than about herself. And she was very appreciative of Patty’s caring for her, lovingly referring to her as the “warden”. And that was Taylor. To borrow her phrase, “I know this is really corny, but I mean it”…Our world is a better place because she was here; our lives are richer because she chose us. She was tough, brave, cool & had a great heart and a great capacity to love and forgive. One last thing—Taylor’s trademark expression was “that’s cool” & that was way before today’s expression of “cool”. Taylor was the trendsetter, she was the “little general”, she was a wonderful friend to us all. She was cool, but most of all, she was kind. She is happy now with her mother and Jason and many relatives, having a big family reunion, and with friends Jack and Kevin.
In the words of Springsteen,
“May your strength give us strength,
may your faith give us faith,
may your hope give us hope,
may your love give us love.”
Rock on Taylor. We love you. Peace.
Eulogy
2/20/2006
Scranton, PA
Life with Janet Teighlor Rizzolo
The one common thread that unites everyone here in this room is the love that Janet Teighlor Rizzolo had for all of us, and the love we all have for her. She saw something in each one of us, and she made each one of us feel very special and very loved. Teighlor thrived on always having a lot of people around, all the time, all hours of the day & night, but not too early in the morning. She loved all her friends. She loved her family deeply. She was a wonderful mother to Jason and Matt, a great aunt, and a great “2nd Mom” to Matt’s friends. She loved her life with Stan. She was tremendously proud of Matt. She loved to ski. She loved to golf, but she really loved to turn people onto golf, loved running the annual Ladies’ Invitational tournament here at her club, and she loved winning trophies. The most important thing to Teighlor was kindness to others, and we all learned this early on in our relationships with Teighlor. As I reflect back on life with Teighlor, I realize that the most important thing that she wanted to teach us, her family, her husband, her son, her friends, is to be kind. That is all that ever mattered to her. We all have stories of Janet’s kindness to others, to strangers. Within that act of pure kindness is a lesson to us. She was teaching us, showing us how to be kind. And she expects that her lessons won’t be lost on us.
Teighlor was a great communicator. She loved to talk, preferably in person, but she also loved to talk on the phone--a phone call would last at least an hour. She also loved to send chain letter emails, which I would normally delete, but I always saved hers. Here is one of them:
I wish you enough…
> >
> >Recently, I overheard a father & daughter saying their good byes at
> >the airport. They had announced her plane's departure and standing
> >near the security gate, they hugged and he said, "I love you. I wish you
> >enough."
> >
> >She said, "Daddy, I wish you enough, too." They kissed and she left
> >to board her plane. He walked over toward the window where I was
> >seated.
> >
> >"When you were saying good bye I heard you say 'I wish you enough'."
> >"May I ask what that means???" He began to smile. "That's a wish
> >that has been handed down from other generations. My parents used to
> >say it to everyone."
> >
> >He paused for a moment, and looking up as if trying to remember it
> >in detail, he smiled even more. "When we said 'I wish you enough',
> >we wanted the other person to have a life filled with enough good
> >things to sustain them," he continued and then turning toward me, he
> >shared the following as if he were reciting it from memory:
> >
> >"I wish you enough sun to keep your attitude bright. I wish you
> >enough rain to appreciate the sun more. I wish you enough happiness
> >to keep your spirit alive. I wish you enough pain so that the
> >smallest joys in life appear much bigger. I wish you enough gain to
> >satisfy your wanting. I wish you enough loss to appreciate all that you possess.
> >I wish you enough "Hello's" to get you through the final "Good bye".
> >He then walked away.
> >
> >My friends and loved ones, I wish you enough!
> >
> >"I wish for you..."
> >
> >Comfort on difficult days, Smiles when sadness intrudes, Rainbows to
> >follow the clouds, Laughter to kiss your lips, Sunsets to warm your
> >heart, Gentle hugs when spirits sag, Friendships to brighten your
> >being, Beauty for your eyes to see, Confidence for when you doubt,
> >Faith so that you can believe, Courage to know yourself, Patience to
> >accept the truth, And love to complete your life.
> >
> >I WISH YOU ENOUGH!!!
> >
> >
Teighlor had so much love in her life, that her life was complete. We who are left behind feel that her life was completed way too soon. We are hurting because we all love her and miss her so much. She loved to laugh, had a great wit, and loved life. Her life was devoted to making people smile and laugh. She would not want us to be sad. We are here to celebrate her life, and in that celebration, her spirit lives on through our memories of her. One of the songs at Teighlor’s funeral was Bridge over Troubled Water, which is really the perfect song for her.
"When you're weary, feeling small
When tears are in your eyes, I will dry them all
I'm on your side, oh, when times get rough
And friends just can't be found
Like a bridge over troubled water
I will lay me down
Like a bridge over troubled water
I will lay me down
When you're down and out
When you're on the street
When evening falls so hard
I will comfort you (ooh)
I'll take your part, oh, when darkness comes
And pain is all around
Like a bridge over troubled water
I will lay me down
Like a bridge over troubled water
I will lay me down
Sail on silver girl
Sail on by
Your time has come to shine
All your dreams are on their way
See how they shine
Oh, if you need a friend
I'm sailing right behind
Like a bridge over troubled water
I will ease your mind
Like a bridge over troubled water
I will ease your mind".
When we think of Teighlor, think of her life, not her death, and don’t feel sad, feel happy that we had such a special spirit here with us to love and who loved us. Think of Teighlor and do what she would do: talk to a stranger, call a friend, make someone smile or laugh, recognize opportunities to be kind to someone and then, dammit, be kind to someone. In this way, Teighlor will live on.
To use her phrase, “I know this is really corny, but I mean it”…Our world is a better place because she was here; our lives are richer because she chose us. She was tough, brave, fun & had a great heart and a great capacity to love and forgive. She was a wonderful friend to us all.
But most of all, she was kind.
March, 2006
Memorial Service
Bridgewater, NJ
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Cancer is not a death sentence--Chemo is
This article is printed in its entirety. The emphasis on the sentence, "Chemo has almost a 98% fatality rate!" is mine, because THAT sentence is the most important sentence you will ever read, especially if you have been handed a diagnosis of disease. Note that this study was conducted in Australia. Studies of this nature are suppressed in the U.S. by the FDA and Big Pharma.
Essentially, what this means is this: the standard of cure is measured in terms of surviving for 5 years after diagnosis. So if someone has chemotherapy and survives for 5 years, they are considered to be "cured" by the AMA. People who decline chemotherapy are not tracked, so this standard applies only to those people who have had chemotherapy. OK. So now that the true effectiveness rate of chemotherapy is out, and that is only 2.1% according to the study cited below, what THAT means is that 2.1% of people in the U.S. receiving chemotherapy will survive for 5 years after they have been diagnosed. The converse, of course, is that 97.9% of all people in the U.S. who receive chemotherapy DIE WITHIN 5 YEARS after diagnosis and toxic treatment! People feel that when they are ill, they must take some kind of medicine. Sometimes the best action is no action. There ARE healthy, beneficial alternatives. Find them. Cancer is not a death sentence. Chemotherapy IS a death sentence.
From "ChemoFraud.com":
"Because YOU need the right info to make the right decision...
DID YOU KNOW THAT THE CONCEPT OF "CHEMOTHERAPY SUCCESS" IS LARGELY A FRAUD?
Statistics indicate that chemotherapy "cures" only 2.1% of cancer patients ... anything else you have heard is a LIE and a FRAUD!
In 2005, the Department of Radiation Oncology at the Northern Sydney Cancer Centre conducted a study on the "success rate" of chemotherapy. After all, everyone KNOWS that chemotherapy is successful over 50% of the time, right?
WRONG!!
The findings of this study will astound you! They determined that, in regards to a 5-year survival rate, chemotherapy has only a 2.1% success rate in the USA and only 2.3% in Australia. In other words . . .
Chemo has almost a 98% fatality rate!
Chemotherapy is toxic, carcinogenic (causes cancer), destroys red blood cells, devastates the immune system, and kills vital organs. How toxic is chemotherapy? Think about it…your hair falls out, your immune system is destroyed, you are constantly nauseated, you get sick and vomit, you are frequently dizzy, and you have severe headaches.
Are these signs that maybe this stuff is poison and doesn’t belong in your body?
I’m no doctor, but this sure does seem like a very strange way to “heal” someone. If I were a doctor and I were trying to heal someone, but then I had them do something which made their hair fall out and they started vomiting and it looked like they were going to die, then I would probably think that I was using the wrong protocol. Sadly, the fact is that cancer patients often die from the drugs themselves due to toxicity.
Cancer patients deserve to know the truth and to make choices based upon this truth. And the truth is that the proven cancer prevention strategies and the real cures for cancer do not need a prescription, nor do they require surgery or barbaric procedures like radiation or chemotherapy.
The sad fact is that chemo is not only legal, but it is readily accepted by most oncologists as one of the best treatments for cancer.
Dr. Glenn Warner, who died in 2000, was one of the most highly qualified cancer specialists in the United States. He used alternative treatments on his cancer patients with great success. On the treatment of cancer in this country he said: “We have a multi-billion dollar industry that is killing people, right and left, just for financial gain. Their idea of research is to see whether two doses of this poison is better than three doses of that poison.”
Dr. Alan C. Nixon, 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.” And according to Dr. Charles Mathe, French cancer specialist, “…if I contracted cancer, I would never go to a standard cancer treatment centre. Only cancer victims who live far from such centres have a chance.”
Yet, day after day, year after year, the Cancer Industry continues to put these toxic chemicals into the bodies of cancer patients. And the patients let them do it, even volunteering for new “guinea pig” studies, simply because someone with a degree from a school of disease (also known as medical school) told them it was their “only option.” It costs lots of money for them to poison the body of cancer patients, and the patients gladly pay it. Sadly, some people will spend six figures a year poisoning their bodies because their “doctor told them to do it.”
The truth is that there are many effective natural cancer treatments that don't require a barbaric procedure like chemotherapy."
Just say no to chemo.
Essentially, what this means is this: the standard of cure is measured in terms of surviving for 5 years after diagnosis. So if someone has chemotherapy and survives for 5 years, they are considered to be "cured" by the AMA. People who decline chemotherapy are not tracked, so this standard applies only to those people who have had chemotherapy. OK. So now that the true effectiveness rate of chemotherapy is out, and that is only 2.1% according to the study cited below, what THAT means is that 2.1% of people in the U.S. receiving chemotherapy will survive for 5 years after they have been diagnosed. The converse, of course, is that 97.9% of all people in the U.S. who receive chemotherapy DIE WITHIN 5 YEARS after diagnosis and toxic treatment! People feel that when they are ill, they must take some kind of medicine. Sometimes the best action is no action. There ARE healthy, beneficial alternatives. Find them. Cancer is not a death sentence. Chemotherapy IS a death sentence.
From "ChemoFraud.com":
"Because YOU need the right info to make the right decision...
DID YOU KNOW THAT THE CONCEPT OF "CHEMOTHERAPY SUCCESS" IS LARGELY A FRAUD?
Statistics indicate that chemotherapy "cures" only 2.1% of cancer patients ... anything else you have heard is a LIE and a FRAUD!
In 2005, the Department of Radiation Oncology at the Northern Sydney Cancer Centre conducted a study on the "success rate" of chemotherapy. After all, everyone KNOWS that chemotherapy is successful over 50% of the time, right?
WRONG!!
The findings of this study will astound you! They determined that, in regards to a 5-year survival rate, chemotherapy has only a 2.1% success rate in the USA and only 2.3% in Australia. In other words . . .
Chemo has almost a 98% fatality rate!
Chemotherapy is toxic, carcinogenic (causes cancer), destroys red blood cells, devastates the immune system, and kills vital organs. How toxic is chemotherapy? Think about it…your hair falls out, your immune system is destroyed, you are constantly nauseated, you get sick and vomit, you are frequently dizzy, and you have severe headaches.
Are these signs that maybe this stuff is poison and doesn’t belong in your body?
I’m no doctor, but this sure does seem like a very strange way to “heal” someone. If I were a doctor and I were trying to heal someone, but then I had them do something which made their hair fall out and they started vomiting and it looked like they were going to die, then I would probably think that I was using the wrong protocol. Sadly, the fact is that cancer patients often die from the drugs themselves due to toxicity.
Cancer patients deserve to know the truth and to make choices based upon this truth. And the truth is that the proven cancer prevention strategies and the real cures for cancer do not need a prescription, nor do they require surgery or barbaric procedures like radiation or chemotherapy.
The sad fact is that chemo is not only legal, but it is readily accepted by most oncologists as one of the best treatments for cancer.
Dr. Glenn Warner, who died in 2000, was one of the most highly qualified cancer specialists in the United States. He used alternative treatments on his cancer patients with great success. On the treatment of cancer in this country he said: “We have a multi-billion dollar industry that is killing people, right and left, just for financial gain. Their idea of research is to see whether two doses of this poison is better than three doses of that poison.”
Dr. Alan C. Nixon, 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.” And according to Dr. Charles Mathe, French cancer specialist, “…if I contracted cancer, I would never go to a standard cancer treatment centre. Only cancer victims who live far from such centres have a chance.”
Yet, day after day, year after year, the Cancer Industry continues to put these toxic chemicals into the bodies of cancer patients. And the patients let them do it, even volunteering for new “guinea pig” studies, simply because someone with a degree from a school of disease (also known as medical school) told them it was their “only option.” It costs lots of money for them to poison the body of cancer patients, and the patients gladly pay it. Sadly, some people will spend six figures a year poisoning their bodies because their “doctor told them to do it.”
The truth is that there are many effective natural cancer treatments that don't require a barbaric procedure like chemotherapy."
Just say no to chemo.
The Dorothy Revelations
Dorothy Brennan was my father's second wife. She died in 1995 after extensive chemotherapy sessions. She had been diagnosed with breast cancer, had the radical mastectomy that was recommended back in those radical days, had the recommended chemotherapy. The cancer survived and moved to the liver. Dorothy continued the recommended treatments and she did not survive.
Janet Taylor Rizzolo was my wonderful friend for 30 years. In the early years, she was tagged with the nickname "Dorothy Lollier", and was known to some of our friends as "Dorothy" (but that's another story). She died in 2006 after extensive chemotherapy sessions. She had been diagnosed with breast cancer, had the recommended surgeries, had the recommended chemotherapy. The cancer survived and moved to the liver. Taylor ("Dorothy") continued the recommended treatments and she did not survive.
When I first started my very strange odyssey, I asked my spiritual guides for advice about taking chemotherapy, and one night in my dream, I heard Taylor say, very simply, "Don't do it, Peg". It was very powerful and woke me from a sound sleep. Last night during a Reiki session, again I heard Taylor say, very simply, "Don't do it, Peg". And then Dorothy Brennan joined in, and collectively, the "Dorothys" said, "It killed us. We thought that we were doing the right thing." And with that, the phrase "The Dorothy Revelations" came into my mind. I know that this is a little far out, but I believe that Dorothy Brennan and Taylor (Dorothy Lollier) guided me onto the right path and are working through me to let other people know that they really have to stop and question conventional treatment. Thus: the Dorothy Revelations.
I love these two women. They both loved life; both very intelligent, well-read, strong, funny, giving, generous, engaged and engaging. Both were very concerned about the well-being of others. And they are both still very concerned about the well-being of others, and they are doing their work from where they are. I am simply the transmitter.
This is my truth. It may not be your truth, but it is my truth.
Just say no to chemo.
Janet Taylor Rizzolo was my wonderful friend for 30 years. In the early years, she was tagged with the nickname "Dorothy Lollier", and was known to some of our friends as "Dorothy" (but that's another story). She died in 2006 after extensive chemotherapy sessions. She had been diagnosed with breast cancer, had the recommended surgeries, had the recommended chemotherapy. The cancer survived and moved to the liver. Taylor ("Dorothy") continued the recommended treatments and she did not survive.
When I first started my very strange odyssey, I asked my spiritual guides for advice about taking chemotherapy, and one night in my dream, I heard Taylor say, very simply, "Don't do it, Peg". It was very powerful and woke me from a sound sleep. Last night during a Reiki session, again I heard Taylor say, very simply, "Don't do it, Peg". And then Dorothy Brennan joined in, and collectively, the "Dorothys" said, "It killed us. We thought that we were doing the right thing." And with that, the phrase "The Dorothy Revelations" came into my mind. I know that this is a little far out, but I believe that Dorothy Brennan and Taylor (Dorothy Lollier) guided me onto the right path and are working through me to let other people know that they really have to stop and question conventional treatment. Thus: the Dorothy Revelations.
I love these two women. They both loved life; both very intelligent, well-read, strong, funny, giving, generous, engaged and engaging. Both were very concerned about the well-being of others. And they are both still very concerned about the well-being of others, and they are doing their work from where they are. I am simply the transmitter.
This is my truth. It may not be your truth, but it is my truth.
Just say no to chemo.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Whistleblower on Laetrile Cover-up fired by Sloan-Kettering
The following is the story of Dr. Moss, the Public Relations Director at Sloan-Kettering in 1977 who was told to lie to the press about the promising laetrile (B-17) studies conducted at S-K. He held his own press conference and blew the whistle on Sloan. He was fired the next day for telling the truth.
Just say no to chemo.
http://curezone.com/diseases/cancer/laetrile.asp
An excerpt from the book :
"ALTERNATIVES IN CANCER THERAPY"
by Ross, R.Ph. Pelton, Lee Overholser
"Laetrile
LAETRILE THERAPY is probably the best known and most widely publicized of alternative cancer therapies. Laetrile, more than any other substance, epitomizes the scientific and philosophical controversy that has raged between supporters of alternative cancer therapies and the medical establishment.
Background
Amygdalin is a member of a group of cyanide-containing substances called nitrilosides, which occur naturally in plants. The terms laetrile and amygdalin are often used interchangeably. Laetrile is a concentrated extract of amygdalin prepared from apricot kernels specifically for cancer therapy. The extraction process was developed by Dr. Ernst Krebs, Jr., who pioneered the use of laetrile in cancer therapy. (17)
Amygdalin, which is also called vitamin B17, is a relatively simple compound that occurs naturally in much of our food supply. Substantial amounts of amygdalin are found in apricots, peaches, cherries, berries, buckwheat, millet, alfalfa, and some strains of beans and peas. It is estimated that it occurs in about 1,200 different kinds of plants, with the highest levels occurring in the seeds of non-citrus fruits.
When laetrile (or amygdalin) is acted upon by the enzyme beta-glucosidase, it breaks down into two molecules of glucose (a sugar), one molecule of benzaldehyde (an analgesic), and one molecule of hydrocyanic acid (a poison).
As the enzyme beta-glucosidase breaks amygdalin down into its component parts, toxic cyanide is released. Studies have shown that various types of cancer cells contain from 100 to 3,600 times more of this enzyme than noncancerous cells, so much greater amounts of cyanide are released where there are active cancer cells. (4)
Although most cancer cells have high levels of beta-glucosidase, they are deficient in most other enzymes, especially rho-danese. (7) Rhodanese detoxifies hydrocyanic acid into nontoxic thiocyanate. Ultimately, the cyanide ion becomes part of the vitamin Bi2 molecule (cyanocobalamin). Since cancer cells have difficulty metabolizing cyanide, it is selectively toxic to cancer cells when released from laetrile. (2)
Benzaldehyde, which is a known analgesic, is also released by the breakdown of laetrile at tumor sites. This probably accounts for the pain relief that patients often report with the administration of laetrile. (8) Some research conducted in Japan has shown that benzaldehyde also has antitumor activity. (9, 11)
In theory, laetrile may be the perfect chemotherapeutic agent. It selectively destroys cancer cells and it is nontoxic to normal cells.
Animal Studies
In a study sponsored by the McNaughton Foundation in San Ysidro, California, laetrile was injected into laboratory animals intraperitoneally in dosages of 500 mg/kg. The mean survival time of the laetrile-treated animals was 70 percent longer than that of the controls. This research was reported at Senate subcommittee hearings on laetrile in July 1977. (21) In addition, studies conducted at the Pasteur Institute in Paris, using a mouse model with adenocarcinoma, showed that laetrile-treated mice survived over twice as long as the control mice. (15)
The Manner Studies
In September 1977 Dr. Harold W. Manner, chairman of the Department of Biology at Loyola University in Chicago, released to the world the results of some remarkable laetrile research. In mice prone to developing breast cancer, Dr. Manner found that laetrile in combination with vitamin A and pancreatic enzymes produced a very high cure rate. Of eighty-four treated mice, seventy-five underwent complete regression of mammary tumors, while the other nine mice showed partial regression. (10)
Dr. Manner has often been criticized for announcing the results of his research publicly instead of waiting for publication in a scientific journal. Peer-reviewed journal publication can often take as long as eighteen months, and Dr. Manner reportedly felt that this information was so important that he decided to bypass the time delay required for scientific publication and to break the story publicly.
The Sloan-Kettering Cover-up
Ralph W. Moss gives an excellent overview of the political and scientific controversy that has surrounded laetrile in his book The Cancer Industry. He states, "Although spokespersons for orthodox medicine continue to deny that there have been any animal study data in favor of laetrile, this is contradicted by a number of studies, including—but not limited to—those at Sloan-Kettering."
Moss should know, because he was discharged by the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center when he revealed an apparent cover-up by authorities at Sloan-Kettering of positive findings about laetrile.
Dr. Kanematsu Sugiura
In the 1960s Dr. Kanematsu Sugiura, one of the world's most widely known and most highly respected cancer research scientists, officially retired from Sloan-Kettering. He continued to carry out cancer research as an emeritus associate. Ten years after his official retirement, officials at Sloan-Kettering asked Dr. Sugiura to begin testing laetrile.
Researchers at Sloan-Kettering had already found laetrile to be ineffective in animal models with transplanted tumors. However, Dr. Sugiura pointed out that laetrile could not be expected to be effective against transplanted tumors.
Dr. Sugiura's research showed that laetrile had a substantial effect on inhibiting the growth of secondary tumors in mice, although it did not destroy the primary tumors. He also reported that some of his studies showed that laetrile can produce a 60-percent reduction in lung metastases. The laetrile-treated mice appeared healthier and more active than the saline-treated controls. This would support some of the claims that laetrile can improve the quality of a patient's life.
Dr. Richard Passwater also reported that some of the positive findings in Sloan-Kettering's laetrile studies were selectively not reported. Also, it appears that some of the laetrile research was deliberately designed to fail. (18)
Controversy and Confusion
According to Ralph Moss, who worked at Sloan-Kettering for several years before being discharged, five years of testing laetrile at Sloan-Kettering ended in controversy and confusion—not a pleasing outcome for the leaders of the world's most prestigious private cancer center. In summary, about twenty experiments with laetrile produced positive results, while only a few experiments produced negative findings.
The contradictory findings and the controversy surrounding laetrile was creating a problem at Sloan-Kettering. A group of dissenters within Sloan-Kettering, who called themselves Second Opinion, wrote a memo on the subject of releasing results of the laetrile research:
If on the one hand, they publish the truth about laetrile, they will have to say something like this: we have been unable to reach any definitive conclusion on this substance. Dr. Sugiura, one of the most experienced researchers, has done many studies showing positive effects. Other researchers have claimed negative results. We think this issue can only be settled through a study on willing human volunteers with cancer, and we would like to conduct such a study here at Memorial Sloan-Kettering.
That would be honest, but it would also be disastrous from a fund-raising point of view, since it would bring down the wrath of the American Cancer Society, and the National Cancer Institute, from whom MSKCC receives most of its research funds, not to mention the Food and Drug Administration....
The other choice is to publish a totally one-sided report. ... This is the most likely prospect....
There was increasing pressure on Sloan-Kettering to release their findings on laetrile.
Sloan-Kettering's Laetrile Report
Finally, at a press conference in June 1977, Sloan-Kettering officials announced to the world the results of over five years of laetrile research. The verdict on laetrile from the respected laboratories of the world's most prestigious cancer research center turned out to be completely one-sided and negative.
Some of the comments by Sloan-Kettering's top administrators at the laetrile press conference were:
We have no evidence that laetrile possesses any biological activity with respect to cancer, one way or the other. —Lewis Thomas, president of Sloan-Kettering
We have no reproducible evidence that amygdalin, or laetrile, is active. —Robert Good, director of Sloan-Kettering
Laetrile has been found absolutely devoid of activity, period. —Daniel Martin, prominent cancer researcher
Essentially, laetrile was pronounced completely ineffective in treating cancer, despite considerable evidence to the contrary.
Worldwide Research
Research has continued in other countries, where the PDA and NCI have much less influence. Dr. David Rubin of Israel has reported using high dosages of laetrile (70 gm/day) and getting good results with breast cancer and bone cancer patients, though leukemia patients did not respond.
Dr. Manuel D. Navarro, professor of medicine and surgery at the University of Santo Tomas in the Philippines, is one of the world's leading advocates of laetrile. In 1962 he presented a paper at the Eighth International Cancer Congress, describing several case histories and reporting that much higher doses of laetrile than previously used were proving to be much more effective.
HCI Studies
In 1978 the National Cancer Institute published the results of a retrospective case review of laetrile-treated cancer patients, asking for documented case histories of patients who had benefited from laetrile. However, the selection criteria were so strict that almost all the reports were rejected and the study was inconclusive.
Despite these disappointing results, NCI decided to proceed with prospective clinical trials, which were conducted by the Mayo Clinic. After a Phase I trial examining dosage and toxicity, a Phase II trial, involving 178 patients with advanced cancers, was conducted. This study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1982, claimed that laetrile was ineffective as a treatment for cancer.
Laetrile advocates pointed out that many of the patients selected for the trial (66 percent) had already been subjected to toxic chemotherapy. Another important question involved the quality of the laetrile being used in the study. In an effort to ensure a proper trial, one of the clinics using laetrile offered to provide free laetrile of known quality for the study. This offer was refused. Dr. James Cason of the University of California at Berkeley reportedly tested the substance used in the NCI study and found that it did not contain any amygdalin (laetrile).
Robert Bradford, founder of the Committee for Freedom of Choice, stated, "The whole thing, as far as we are concerned, is a put-up to discredit laetrile." At this time it appears laetrile has not yet received a fair, unbiased trial.
Current Status
Laetrile therapy is one of the first alternative cancer therapies that tended to polarize the emotional issue of freedom of choice for Americans in health care. It became a fight between the "quacks" and the medical establishment.
Laetrile is one of the naturally occurring substances that cannot be patented, making it a true orphan drug. No drug company is interested in committing money to research laetrile's potential. The only answer is good, unbiased government-sponsored research without the type of controversy that accompanied the Sloan-Kettering studies."
http://curezone.com/diseases/cancer/laetrile.asp
Just say no to chemo.
http://curezone.com/diseases/cancer/laetrile.asp
An excerpt from the book :
"ALTERNATIVES IN CANCER THERAPY"
by Ross, R.Ph. Pelton, Lee Overholser
"Laetrile
LAETRILE THERAPY is probably the best known and most widely publicized of alternative cancer therapies. Laetrile, more than any other substance, epitomizes the scientific and philosophical controversy that has raged between supporters of alternative cancer therapies and the medical establishment.
Background
Amygdalin is a member of a group of cyanide-containing substances called nitrilosides, which occur naturally in plants. The terms laetrile and amygdalin are often used interchangeably. Laetrile is a concentrated extract of amygdalin prepared from apricot kernels specifically for cancer therapy. The extraction process was developed by Dr. Ernst Krebs, Jr., who pioneered the use of laetrile in cancer therapy. (17)
Amygdalin, which is also called vitamin B17, is a relatively simple compound that occurs naturally in much of our food supply. Substantial amounts of amygdalin are found in apricots, peaches, cherries, berries, buckwheat, millet, alfalfa, and some strains of beans and peas. It is estimated that it occurs in about 1,200 different kinds of plants, with the highest levels occurring in the seeds of non-citrus fruits.
When laetrile (or amygdalin) is acted upon by the enzyme beta-glucosidase, it breaks down into two molecules of glucose (a sugar), one molecule of benzaldehyde (an analgesic), and one molecule of hydrocyanic acid (a poison).
As the enzyme beta-glucosidase breaks amygdalin down into its component parts, toxic cyanide is released. Studies have shown that various types of cancer cells contain from 100 to 3,600 times more of this enzyme than noncancerous cells, so much greater amounts of cyanide are released where there are active cancer cells. (4)
Although most cancer cells have high levels of beta-glucosidase, they are deficient in most other enzymes, especially rho-danese. (7) Rhodanese detoxifies hydrocyanic acid into nontoxic thiocyanate. Ultimately, the cyanide ion becomes part of the vitamin Bi2 molecule (cyanocobalamin). Since cancer cells have difficulty metabolizing cyanide, it is selectively toxic to cancer cells when released from laetrile. (2)
Benzaldehyde, which is a known analgesic, is also released by the breakdown of laetrile at tumor sites. This probably accounts for the pain relief that patients often report with the administration of laetrile. (8) Some research conducted in Japan has shown that benzaldehyde also has antitumor activity. (9, 11)
In theory, laetrile may be the perfect chemotherapeutic agent. It selectively destroys cancer cells and it is nontoxic to normal cells.
Animal Studies
In a study sponsored by the McNaughton Foundation in San Ysidro, California, laetrile was injected into laboratory animals intraperitoneally in dosages of 500 mg/kg. The mean survival time of the laetrile-treated animals was 70 percent longer than that of the controls. This research was reported at Senate subcommittee hearings on laetrile in July 1977. (21) In addition, studies conducted at the Pasteur Institute in Paris, using a mouse model with adenocarcinoma, showed that laetrile-treated mice survived over twice as long as the control mice. (15)
The Manner Studies
In September 1977 Dr. Harold W. Manner, chairman of the Department of Biology at Loyola University in Chicago, released to the world the results of some remarkable laetrile research. In mice prone to developing breast cancer, Dr. Manner found that laetrile in combination with vitamin A and pancreatic enzymes produced a very high cure rate. Of eighty-four treated mice, seventy-five underwent complete regression of mammary tumors, while the other nine mice showed partial regression. (10)
Dr. Manner has often been criticized for announcing the results of his research publicly instead of waiting for publication in a scientific journal. Peer-reviewed journal publication can often take as long as eighteen months, and Dr. Manner reportedly felt that this information was so important that he decided to bypass the time delay required for scientific publication and to break the story publicly.
The Sloan-Kettering Cover-up
Ralph W. Moss gives an excellent overview of the political and scientific controversy that has surrounded laetrile in his book The Cancer Industry. He states, "Although spokespersons for orthodox medicine continue to deny that there have been any animal study data in favor of laetrile, this is contradicted by a number of studies, including—but not limited to—those at Sloan-Kettering."
Moss should know, because he was discharged by the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center when he revealed an apparent cover-up by authorities at Sloan-Kettering of positive findings about laetrile.
Dr. Kanematsu Sugiura
In the 1960s Dr. Kanematsu Sugiura, one of the world's most widely known and most highly respected cancer research scientists, officially retired from Sloan-Kettering. He continued to carry out cancer research as an emeritus associate. Ten years after his official retirement, officials at Sloan-Kettering asked Dr. Sugiura to begin testing laetrile.
Researchers at Sloan-Kettering had already found laetrile to be ineffective in animal models with transplanted tumors. However, Dr. Sugiura pointed out that laetrile could not be expected to be effective against transplanted tumors.
Dr. Sugiura's research showed that laetrile had a substantial effect on inhibiting the growth of secondary tumors in mice, although it did not destroy the primary tumors. He also reported that some of his studies showed that laetrile can produce a 60-percent reduction in lung metastases. The laetrile-treated mice appeared healthier and more active than the saline-treated controls. This would support some of the claims that laetrile can improve the quality of a patient's life.
Dr. Richard Passwater also reported that some of the positive findings in Sloan-Kettering's laetrile studies were selectively not reported. Also, it appears that some of the laetrile research was deliberately designed to fail. (18)
Controversy and Confusion
According to Ralph Moss, who worked at Sloan-Kettering for several years before being discharged, five years of testing laetrile at Sloan-Kettering ended in controversy and confusion—not a pleasing outcome for the leaders of the world's most prestigious private cancer center. In summary, about twenty experiments with laetrile produced positive results, while only a few experiments produced negative findings.
The contradictory findings and the controversy surrounding laetrile was creating a problem at Sloan-Kettering. A group of dissenters within Sloan-Kettering, who called themselves Second Opinion, wrote a memo on the subject of releasing results of the laetrile research:
If on the one hand, they publish the truth about laetrile, they will have to say something like this: we have been unable to reach any definitive conclusion on this substance. Dr. Sugiura, one of the most experienced researchers, has done many studies showing positive effects. Other researchers have claimed negative results. We think this issue can only be settled through a study on willing human volunteers with cancer, and we would like to conduct such a study here at Memorial Sloan-Kettering.
That would be honest, but it would also be disastrous from a fund-raising point of view, since it would bring down the wrath of the American Cancer Society, and the National Cancer Institute, from whom MSKCC receives most of its research funds, not to mention the Food and Drug Administration....
The other choice is to publish a totally one-sided report. ... This is the most likely prospect....
There was increasing pressure on Sloan-Kettering to release their findings on laetrile.
Sloan-Kettering's Laetrile Report
Finally, at a press conference in June 1977, Sloan-Kettering officials announced to the world the results of over five years of laetrile research. The verdict on laetrile from the respected laboratories of the world's most prestigious cancer research center turned out to be completely one-sided and negative.
Some of the comments by Sloan-Kettering's top administrators at the laetrile press conference were:
We have no evidence that laetrile possesses any biological activity with respect to cancer, one way or the other. —Lewis Thomas, president of Sloan-Kettering
We have no reproducible evidence that amygdalin, or laetrile, is active. —Robert Good, director of Sloan-Kettering
Laetrile has been found absolutely devoid of activity, period. —Daniel Martin, prominent cancer researcher
Essentially, laetrile was pronounced completely ineffective in treating cancer, despite considerable evidence to the contrary.
Worldwide Research
Research has continued in other countries, where the PDA and NCI have much less influence. Dr. David Rubin of Israel has reported using high dosages of laetrile (70 gm/day) and getting good results with breast cancer and bone cancer patients, though leukemia patients did not respond.
Dr. Manuel D. Navarro, professor of medicine and surgery at the University of Santo Tomas in the Philippines, is one of the world's leading advocates of laetrile. In 1962 he presented a paper at the Eighth International Cancer Congress, describing several case histories and reporting that much higher doses of laetrile than previously used were proving to be much more effective.
HCI Studies
In 1978 the National Cancer Institute published the results of a retrospective case review of laetrile-treated cancer patients, asking for documented case histories of patients who had benefited from laetrile. However, the selection criteria were so strict that almost all the reports were rejected and the study was inconclusive.
Despite these disappointing results, NCI decided to proceed with prospective clinical trials, which were conducted by the Mayo Clinic. After a Phase I trial examining dosage and toxicity, a Phase II trial, involving 178 patients with advanced cancers, was conducted. This study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1982, claimed that laetrile was ineffective as a treatment for cancer.
Laetrile advocates pointed out that many of the patients selected for the trial (66 percent) had already been subjected to toxic chemotherapy. Another important question involved the quality of the laetrile being used in the study. In an effort to ensure a proper trial, one of the clinics using laetrile offered to provide free laetrile of known quality for the study. This offer was refused. Dr. James Cason of the University of California at Berkeley reportedly tested the substance used in the NCI study and found that it did not contain any amygdalin (laetrile).
Robert Bradford, founder of the Committee for Freedom of Choice, stated, "The whole thing, as far as we are concerned, is a put-up to discredit laetrile." At this time it appears laetrile has not yet received a fair, unbiased trial.
Current Status
Laetrile therapy is one of the first alternative cancer therapies that tended to polarize the emotional issue of freedom of choice for Americans in health care. It became a fight between the "quacks" and the medical establishment.
Laetrile is one of the naturally occurring substances that cannot be patented, making it a true orphan drug. No drug company is interested in committing money to research laetrile's potential. The only answer is good, unbiased government-sponsored research without the type of controversy that accompanied the Sloan-Kettering studies."
http://curezone.com/diseases/cancer/laetrile.asp
It's illegal to buy Vitamin B-17 in America
Vitamin B-17, or Laetrile, is banned in the US. Laetrile is a chemically modified form of amygdalin, a naturally-occurring substance found mainly in the kernels of apricots, peaches, and almonds. It is just incredible that US citizens cannot buy a vitamin in this country.
Just say no to chemo. Say yes to healthy alternatives to the poison they have brainwashed us with.
The following article in its entirety tells the story of someone who was prosecuted and jailed for selling apricot seeds. (from http://www.apricotsfromgod.info/jvale/)
"Jason Vale and the Cancer Mafia
PostDateIcon November 5th, 2008
Jason Vale, a former arm wrestling champion who cured his cancer with natural means and who felt he should help others cure themselves as well, has run afoul of - the Cancer Mafia.
Vale was tried and is awaiting sentencing - expected for 19 December - for violating an FDA order to cease selling apricot seeds and any extract from them such as laetrile, while promoting them as a cure for cancer.
The FDA's approach practically makes treatment with laetrile or vitamin B 17 illegal, because no pharmaceutical company can make enough money selling them to make it worth going through the registration process. As we see, the pharmaceutical monopoly on disease is eliminating a cure that is not in its financial interest.
Why is Laetrile Treatment Illegal ?
Why doesn't the whole world know about this ?
The Answer : $ money $
(The original article with some further links is here)http://www.laetrile.com.au
Because the pharmaceutical multinationals are unable to patent or claim exclusive rights to the vitamin B17, as it is derived from a natural source (The Prunus Amygdalis Rosacea family), the multinational pharmaceuticals launched and have continued to launch attacks of unprecedented vicious propaganda against B17 despite the hard proof of its effectiveness in controlling all forms of cancer which is available in overwhelming abundance.
The cancer industry is a $200 Billion a year industry. That's right not $200 million but $200 BILLION !!!
Now if you had a large interest in such a huge market wouldn't you try to protect your industry and market share? Of course you would. And that's exactly what has happened and is happening today. Unfortunately we find ourselves living in a time where lies and deceit have been and are being used by government national bodies and foundations which were designed to research cures and treatments for cancer, not to focus on protecting their significant financial interest.
Did you know the wealthiest non profit institution on this planet is the American Cancer Society ?
Did you know the worlds largest private cancer center Sloan-Kettering Memorial Hospital (SKMH) was established by Wall Streets top Banks and Corporations including a large interest from the Rockefellers. In today's society do the major corporations and banks place people before profit? Of course not!! Every day our newspapers in Australia tell us a story where our Banks and major corporations are putting profit before people.
Did you know that the major generous donators and financial contributors to the Sloan-Kettering Memorial Hospital include all the major chemical companies that actually supply the chemotherapy and drugs used to treat patients at the hospital !
Companies such as Bristol Myers spend over $1 billion dollars annually on cancer research to improve or introduce new chemo drugs. Bristol Myers supplies over half the worlds chemotherapy drugs. So they have a significant interest in the cancer industry. So significant is their interest that the board members that chair the largest cancer drug and chemical companies also chair or are board members of all the major cancer institutes. Funny that, one would think there is a conflict of interest here. They get around this simply by either not taking a salary or making it a voluntary position with the cancer centres. After all, the chemical companies pay them more than enough for being board members of the chemical companies themselves. For example Paul A Marks who is president and CEO of the Sloan-Kettering Memorial Hospital and is also Director of Pfizer which manufactures chemotherapy and cancer related drugs.
Also James Robinson is a board member of the Sloan-Kettering Memorial Hospital and also a Director of Bristol Myers one of the largest suppliers of cancer chemotherapy and other cancer drugs. You will find most of the executives that chair or are board members of all the top cancer organizations also chair or are affiliated with one or more of the major cancer drug multinationals. As mentioned, they get around this conflict of interest most of the time by not taking a salary from either the research center or the drug company. Either way its a huge conflict of interest in my view.
This is why the Sloan-Kettering Memorial Hospital (SKMH), National Cancer Institute (NCI), American Cancer Society (ACS), Food and Drug Administration (FDA) & the American Medical Association (AMA) are involved together to ensure they persecute and squeeze out any threats to their market. Even if it costs millions of lives and even if the therapy works, if its a threat they will stamp it out...
It is scary to know that the very government regulatory agencies themselves, such as the US Food & Drug Administration and Britain's Medicines Control Agency, which are supposed to protect the public from potentially dangerous products coming onto the market are horribly compromised because of ties with the chemical/drug industries that make cancer drugs.
A USA TODAY analysis of financial conflicts at 159 FDA advisory committee meetings from 1st January - 30th June 2000 found that at 55% of their meetings, more than half of the FDA advisors had conflicts of interest!!!
These cancer organizations are run by business leaders, bankers and board members of the cancer drug companies that supply chemotherapy drugs to the market. Because many of today's known carcinogens are by-products of profitable industries of which these same board members have financial interests in, their aim is to prevent cancer preventions and prevent any natural or non chemical therapy from entering the market. It’s a perfect Cartel between these giants of big business. John Reed a director of SKMH is also a director of tobacco giant Philip Morris.
For example... The way the current system is setup thanks to the FDA and AMA, did you know it now costs over $100 million to develop a new drug in America. They have literally setup a monopoly situation. It’s a poker game and the ante is $100 million if you want to play.
In 1982 Dr Richard Crout of the FDA made his agency's position very clear: "I never have and never will approve a new drug to an individual, but only to a large pharmaceutical firm with unlimited finances".
The problem here is the processing of Laetrile cannot be patented. It’s a natural product. you can't make millions or huge profits like cancer drugs generate. As Edward G Griffin puts it "So no substance from nature will ever be legally available for cancer unless its source can be monopolized. No matter how safe and effective it may be, and no matter how many people may have benefited, it will forever be relegated to the category of unproven therapies making them illegal to prescribe, to promote and to use".
Laetrile and all other natural products, used in treating cancer are a threat to their profits."
http://www.apricotsfromgod.info/jvale/
Just say no to chemo. Say yes to healthy alternatives to the poison they have brainwashed us with.
The following article in its entirety tells the story of someone who was prosecuted and jailed for selling apricot seeds. (from http://www.apricotsfromgod.info/jvale/)
"Jason Vale and the Cancer Mafia
PostDateIcon November 5th, 2008
Jason Vale, a former arm wrestling champion who cured his cancer with natural means and who felt he should help others cure themselves as well, has run afoul of - the Cancer Mafia.
Vale was tried and is awaiting sentencing - expected for 19 December - for violating an FDA order to cease selling apricot seeds and any extract from them such as laetrile, while promoting them as a cure for cancer.
The FDA's approach practically makes treatment with laetrile or vitamin B 17 illegal, because no pharmaceutical company can make enough money selling them to make it worth going through the registration process. As we see, the pharmaceutical monopoly on disease is eliminating a cure that is not in its financial interest.
Why is Laetrile Treatment Illegal ?
Why doesn't the whole world know about this ?
The Answer : $ money $
(The original article with some further links is here)http://www.laetrile.com.au
Because the pharmaceutical multinationals are unable to patent or claim exclusive rights to the vitamin B17, as it is derived from a natural source (The Prunus Amygdalis Rosacea family), the multinational pharmaceuticals launched and have continued to launch attacks of unprecedented vicious propaganda against B17 despite the hard proof of its effectiveness in controlling all forms of cancer which is available in overwhelming abundance.
The cancer industry is a $200 Billion a year industry. That's right not $200 million but $200 BILLION !!!
Now if you had a large interest in such a huge market wouldn't you try to protect your industry and market share? Of course you would. And that's exactly what has happened and is happening today. Unfortunately we find ourselves living in a time where lies and deceit have been and are being used by government national bodies and foundations which were designed to research cures and treatments for cancer, not to focus on protecting their significant financial interest.
Did you know the wealthiest non profit institution on this planet is the American Cancer Society ?
Did you know the worlds largest private cancer center Sloan-Kettering Memorial Hospital (SKMH) was established by Wall Streets top Banks and Corporations including a large interest from the Rockefellers. In today's society do the major corporations and banks place people before profit? Of course not!! Every day our newspapers in Australia tell us a story where our Banks and major corporations are putting profit before people.
Did you know that the major generous donators and financial contributors to the Sloan-Kettering Memorial Hospital include all the major chemical companies that actually supply the chemotherapy and drugs used to treat patients at the hospital !
Companies such as Bristol Myers spend over $1 billion dollars annually on cancer research to improve or introduce new chemo drugs. Bristol Myers supplies over half the worlds chemotherapy drugs. So they have a significant interest in the cancer industry. So significant is their interest that the board members that chair the largest cancer drug and chemical companies also chair or are board members of all the major cancer institutes. Funny that, one would think there is a conflict of interest here. They get around this simply by either not taking a salary or making it a voluntary position with the cancer centres. After all, the chemical companies pay them more than enough for being board members of the chemical companies themselves. For example Paul A Marks who is president and CEO of the Sloan-Kettering Memorial Hospital and is also Director of Pfizer which manufactures chemotherapy and cancer related drugs.
Also James Robinson is a board member of the Sloan-Kettering Memorial Hospital and also a Director of Bristol Myers one of the largest suppliers of cancer chemotherapy and other cancer drugs. You will find most of the executives that chair or are board members of all the top cancer organizations also chair or are affiliated with one or more of the major cancer drug multinationals. As mentioned, they get around this conflict of interest most of the time by not taking a salary from either the research center or the drug company. Either way its a huge conflict of interest in my view.
This is why the Sloan-Kettering Memorial Hospital (SKMH), National Cancer Institute (NCI), American Cancer Society (ACS), Food and Drug Administration (FDA) & the American Medical Association (AMA) are involved together to ensure they persecute and squeeze out any threats to their market. Even if it costs millions of lives and even if the therapy works, if its a threat they will stamp it out...
It is scary to know that the very government regulatory agencies themselves, such as the US Food & Drug Administration and Britain's Medicines Control Agency, which are supposed to protect the public from potentially dangerous products coming onto the market are horribly compromised because of ties with the chemical/drug industries that make cancer drugs.
A USA TODAY analysis of financial conflicts at 159 FDA advisory committee meetings from 1st January - 30th June 2000 found that at 55% of their meetings, more than half of the FDA advisors had conflicts of interest!!!
These cancer organizations are run by business leaders, bankers and board members of the cancer drug companies that supply chemotherapy drugs to the market. Because many of today's known carcinogens are by-products of profitable industries of which these same board members have financial interests in, their aim is to prevent cancer preventions and prevent any natural or non chemical therapy from entering the market. It’s a perfect Cartel between these giants of big business. John Reed a director of SKMH is also a director of tobacco giant Philip Morris.
For example... The way the current system is setup thanks to the FDA and AMA, did you know it now costs over $100 million to develop a new drug in America. They have literally setup a monopoly situation. It’s a poker game and the ante is $100 million if you want to play.
In 1982 Dr Richard Crout of the FDA made his agency's position very clear: "I never have and never will approve a new drug to an individual, but only to a large pharmaceutical firm with unlimited finances".
The problem here is the processing of Laetrile cannot be patented. It’s a natural product. you can't make millions or huge profits like cancer drugs generate. As Edward G Griffin puts it "So no substance from nature will ever be legally available for cancer unless its source can be monopolized. No matter how safe and effective it may be, and no matter how many people may have benefited, it will forever be relegated to the category of unproven therapies making them illegal to prescribe, to promote and to use".
Laetrile and all other natural products, used in treating cancer are a threat to their profits."
http://www.apricotsfromgod.info/jvale/
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Chemo: The Cash Cow of the Cancer Industry
Cash Cow, defined
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (1/10/10)
"In business, a cash cow is a product or a business unit that generates unusually high profit margins: so high that it is responsible for a large amount of a company's operating profit. This profit far exceeds the amount necessary to maintain the cash cow business.
A firm is said to be acting as a cash cow...when the firm is not investing in product improvements and is essentially considering itself not in a growth market. This could be the case if a company sees the future of a product line as bleak as a result of some other technology taking away its market share.
Risks of a cash cow include complacency, with management ignoring the need for change as market forces erode value.
That said, every business longs for a cash cow product. The BCG growth-share matrix developed by the Boston Consulting Group, still used by analysts in large companies, uses the term "cash cow" to describe business units experiencing high market share and low market growth.
["Cash cow"] is a business metaphor rooted in the notion of a dairy cow that can be milked on an ongoing basis..."
Chemo is the Cash Cow of the Cancer Industry. However, as the Cancer Industry controls and monopolizes the market through cooperation of complicit regulatory and research agencies, there is no market force present to erode value. Obscene profits continue to roll in on the backs of deceived cancer patients. The Cancer Industry is insulated from the normal forces of the market place, which, if allowed to exist, would force it to 1) recall all chemotherapy products as unsafe; and 2) introduce safer products into the marketplace.
Just say no to chemo.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (1/10/10)
"In business, a cash cow is a product or a business unit that generates unusually high profit margins: so high that it is responsible for a large amount of a company's operating profit. This profit far exceeds the amount necessary to maintain the cash cow business.
A firm is said to be acting as a cash cow...when the firm is not investing in product improvements and is essentially considering itself not in a growth market. This could be the case if a company sees the future of a product line as bleak as a result of some other technology taking away its market share.
Risks of a cash cow include complacency, with management ignoring the need for change as market forces erode value.
That said, every business longs for a cash cow product. The BCG growth-share matrix developed by the Boston Consulting Group, still used by analysts in large companies, uses the term "cash cow" to describe business units experiencing high market share and low market growth.
["Cash cow"] is a business metaphor rooted in the notion of a dairy cow that can be milked on an ongoing basis..."
Chemo is the Cash Cow of the Cancer Industry. However, as the Cancer Industry controls and monopolizes the market through cooperation of complicit regulatory and research agencies, there is no market force present to erode value. Obscene profits continue to roll in on the backs of deceived cancer patients. The Cancer Industry is insulated from the normal forces of the market place, which, if allowed to exist, would force it to 1) recall all chemotherapy products as unsafe; and 2) introduce safer products into the marketplace.
Just say no to chemo.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
