For decades there has been a great deal of controversy within the medical community over what kind of medical treatment is most efficacious in treating cancer. Latest findings reveal all conventional medical treatment for cancer is virtually worthless.
Text under construction
The late Dr. Hardin B. Jones, Professor of Medical Physics and Physiology at Berkeley, California, made a study lasting 25 years of the life span of cancer patients, and had concluded that untreated patients do not die sooner than patients receiving orthodox treatment (surgery, radiation and chemotherapy), and in many cases they live longer. Dr. Jones delivered his bombshell report at the American Cancer Society’s (11th) Science Writers’ Seminar (March 28-April 2, 1969), in which he confirmed what he had written as early as 1955, in his classic paper. “Demographic Consideration of the Cancer Problem,” published in Transactions of the New York Academy of Sciences (Series II, Vol. 18, pp. 298-333).
In his 1955 paper, Dr. Jones demonstrates how cancer studies are manipulated (he politely calls them “bases” and “errors”) in order to make it appear that the treated cancer patients live longer than the untreated. Referring to one particular study on breast cancer, he says: “Cases that died during treatment, or closely following treatment, were discarded because of the possible effect of the severity of treatment.” (p. 316).
In 1969, before the American Cancer Society’s Science Writers’ Seminar, Dr. Jones pointed out that the failure of past survival studies were that they did not take into account that the worst, inoperable cases were left in the groups that were untreated. Thus many cancer studies were based on research done with operable and “healthier” cases, giving the mistaken judgment that surgery and radiation were of value in cancer treatment. When Jones corrected for such bias statistically he found that the life expectancy of untreated cases of cancer were greater than that of the treated cases. Dr. Jones concluded that “evidence for benefit from cancer therapy has depended on systematic biometric errors.”
After almost 40 years as a cancer researcher, Dr. Jones found, for example, that survival in breast cancer is 4 times longer without conventional treatment. he stated, “People who refused treatment lived for an average of 12-1/2 years. Those who accepted other kinds of treatment lived an average of only 3 years. Beyond the shadow of a doubt, radical surgery on cancer patients does more harm than good.” (The Naked Empress, Hans Reusch, p. 74)
It is important to note that no refutations of Dr. Jones’ work have appeared, while on the other hand, his studies have been supported by other researchers, as a search of the Science Citation Index reveals.
Even the Journal of the American Medical Association took note of the phenomenon when, in its February 2, 1979 issue, it published an article on the diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer by Dr. Maurice Fox, a biologist from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. On the basis of studies carried out at the Harvard School of Public Health, Dr. Fox found, among other things, that:
- Radical mastectomy was no better than simple lump removal.
- Breast cancer was diagnosed twice as frequently in 1975 as in 1935. The death rate was also double, showing no progress had been made.
- Those who refused medical procedures had a lower mortality rate than those who submitted.
- Early detection meant accelerated treatment and early death.
Thus, according to Dr. Jones and other researchers, it appears that medically sanctioned cancer treatment dramatically shortens the lives of cancer victims, while, we might add, increases their pain and suffering to an intolerable degree. After all, treatment can actually spread a cancer and spur the growth of deadly metastases. These metastases are actually inhibited by the primary tumor, according to the studies of Dr. Michael Feldman and his colleagues at the Weizmann Institute in Israel in 1978. Radiation is itself well recognized as cancer causing and chemotherapy is not only devastating and injurious, but ineffective! An article in The Lancet (official journal of the British Medical Association), March 15, 1980, entitled “Failure of Chemotherapy to Prolong Survival in a Group of Patients with Metastatic Breast Cancer,” stated:
“Overall survival of patients with primary breast cancer has not improved in the past 10 years, despite increasing use of multiple-drug chemotherapy for treatment of metastasis. Furthermore, there has been no improvement in survival from first metastasis, and survival may even have been shortened in some patients given chemotherapy…. Actuarial survival analysis … reveals no prolongation in overall survival, despite the increased use of multiple-drug chemotherapy for metastatic disease. The survival of the 78 patients who received chemotherapy from first detection of metastases (including single-agent chemotherapy) was no better than that of the 80 who did not receive chemotherapy. There was also no improvement in survival for those who received multiple-drug chemotherapy (66 patients)…. The fact that regressions of breast cancer had no influence on overall survival must reflect the inadequacy of present-day chemotherapy.”
Obviously, cancer patients have no knowledge of the inefficacy of chemotherapy (they would not permit it if they did), but its brutalizing effects upon the body are so well known that it is no small wonder that we now have reports of cancer patients refusing to subscribe to it. As many as 85 percent of cancer patients who are prescribed chemotherapy pills do not take them, according to findings of a study conducted by Dr. Alexandra Levine of the Kenneth Norris Center Hospital and Research Institute in Los Angeles (U.S.A. Today, February 4, 1985). And why should they? “After all” says Dr. Levine, “We are telling them, ‘Take the medicine. It will cause side effects, but we don’t know if it will help.”
And what are those “side-effects” cancer patients are encouraged to ignore? Cancer Forum (Vol. 1, No. 1-2) lists 13 drugs used in chemotherapy and their consequent side effects (as listed in the drugs’ package inserts for physicians), which include: destruction of immune system, leukopenia, hemorrhage, gonadal suppression, bone marrow depression, phlebosclerosis (hardening of the veins), severe cellulitis, vesication (blistering), tissue necrosis (death), fever, chills, nausea, prolonged vomiting, partial or total hair loss, lethargy, disorientation, ataxis (inability to coordinate muscle movements), dysarthria (impaired speech), anorexia, enteritis, stomatitis, erythema (morbid redness of skin), anemia, liver failure, kidney failure, cancer and death.
The above is just a partial listing of the hideous side effects of chemotherapy. Is it any wonder that cancer patients are refusing to partake in this form of cancer treatment?
In view of all the foregoing information, it is reasonable to conclude that any alleged claim of improvement in cancer survival rates due to conventional medical treatment may be attributed to the fact that cancer patients are not following doctors’ orders.
The prospects for improvement in cancer survival under conventional medical treatment seem no brighter today than they were at the turn of the century, or when the “War on Cancer” began in 1971, despite drug and medical propaganda to the contrary. below is a comparison of cancer statistics provided by Cancer Facts and Figures, published by the American Cancer Society.
Hence, the only improvement in 14 years since the “War on Cancer” began (and billions of dollars spent) appears to be in survival rates. But many prestigious scientists and doctors dispute this. Here are two:
In the September 18, 1984 New York Times and in an article in the September issue of Science ’84, Dr. Hayden Bush, director of a regional cancer center in Ontario, Canada, made the following points (paraphrasing):
There is no real advance in cancer treatments. If there was, we’d see an improvement in mortality rates. What has happened is that there is now an emphasis in early diagnosis which starts the “survival clock” sooner. So that even with no real change in survival duration there would be an apparent improvement in survival rates by starting the clock at an earlier time due to early diagnosis.
Dr. John Baylor, an official of the National Cancer Institute, ra Harvard bio-statistician, and a consultant to the New England Journal of Medicine, said on the Today show in December 1984:
A lot of early lesions that are not cancer at all are being counted as cancer through these early detection methods. These people will go on to lead a normal life anyway the lesions will clear up by themselves. But they include these cases as cancer thus polluting the pool of real cancer patients and making it seem that survival rates have risen.
The above article clearly demonstrates the futility of conventional medical treatment for cancer. This raises the question, what alternatives are left to the cancer victim?