Edit this page
Modify this page
Edit this string
         
You are here: Home >News & Events >Articles >
Death by doctoring (1)

by Steven Ransom
Extracted from his book
Great News on Cancer in the 21st Century
(Credence, 2002)
 
       
'In summoning even the wisest of physicians to our aid, it is probable that he is relying upon a scientific 'truth',
the error of which will become obvious in just a few years' time.'
                                                                                                                                                      — Marcel Proust

Orthodox anticancer therapies have harmful if not fatal side effects,
but medical professionals continue to inflict them on their patients as a matter of course.
 

 
CANCER: THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY

Twenty-first century medicine boasts a number of treatments that are actually very dangerous to human health, none more so than for cancer. May this short report reach the many thousands of people currently undergoing conventional cancer treatment. May it also reach the many thousands of doctors, physicians, nurses and carers who every day are innocently inflicting serious harm in the name of conventional cancer care. Let the countdown begin. Let there soon be an end to...Death by Doctoring.

Every year in the United Kingdom, 200,000 people are diagnosed with cancer and 152,500 people die. In the United States, the annual death rate for this disease is approxi¬mately 547,000. These deaths are recorded as cancer deaths, but how many of these deaths are really attributable to the disease itself? How many deaths should in fact be recorded as "death by doctoring"? When we consider that conventional treatment consists almost entirely of radiation, chemotherapy and the long-term application of toxic pharma-ceuticals—treatments which are all well known for their life-threatening side-effects— then the question becomes all the more legitimate. On chemotherapy, for instance, note the following: "Most cancer patients in this country die of chemotherapy. Chemotherapy does not eliminate breast, colon, or lung cancers. This fact has been documented for over a decade, yet doctors still use chemotherapy for these tumors." (Allen Levin, MD, UCSF, The Healing of Cancer, Marcus Books, 1990)
 
We examine the much-publicised story of the UK media personality, the late John Diamond, who opted for conventional treatment. What does his story tell us? John was known for his critical attitude towards many of the more popular alternative therapies. We look at some aspects of the alternative approach and ask if his criticisms were entirely undeserved. We hear from those within the cancer establishment itself who cite the con¬ventional cut, burn and dissolve techniques as ugly and inhumane, and from those who seriously question the amounts of money being invested in conventional cancer today, given the pitifully low recovery rate. In the UK alone, £2.8 billion a year is spent in the conventional cancer emporium. That's roughly £6,800,000 a day. US spending on cancer is 10 times higher.

We also hear from those who defied conventional wisdom and opted for non-toxic, non-conventional cancer treatments, with remarkable results. And no, we are not talking dolphin or pyramid therapy. From the known range of anticancer treatments available, this story focuses on the naturally occurring vitamin B17, vitamin C and the supporting role of nutrition. Vitamin B17 in particular has been attracting a great deal of attention recently, despite the concerted efforts of the worldwide cancer establishment to suppress or distort all the positive reporting on this vitamin.

But should we find this so surprising? After all, it's no secret that with global spending on conventional cancer running into the hundreds of billions of pounds and dollars annu¬ally, any news of a successful anticancer treatment extracted from the simple apricot kernel could do some serious damage to the wealth of the mighty Cancer, Inc.
 
Passing of King Charles II, 1685
 
But first, by way of introduction to the subject of "death by doctoring", we travel back a few hundred years to the bedside of King Charles II, where 14 of the highest-qualified physicians in the land are earnestly "reviving" the king from a stroke.

"The king was bled to the extent of a pint from a vein in his right arm. Next, his shoulder was cut into and the incised area was sucked of an additional 8 oz of blood. An emetic and a purgative were administered, followed by a second purgative, followed by an enema containing antimone, sacred bitters, rock salt, mallow leaves, violets, beetroot, camomile flowers, fennel seeds, linseed, cinnamon, cardamom seed, saffron, cochineal and aloes. The king's scalp was shaved and a blister raised. A sneezing powder of hellebore was administered. A plaster of burgundy pitch and pigeon dung was applied to the feet. Medicaments included melon seeds, manna, slippery elm, black cherry water, lime flowers, lily of the valley, peony, lavender and dissolved pearls. As he grew worse, forty drops of extract of human skull were adminis¬tered, followed by a rallying dose of Raleigh's antidote. Finally, bezoar stone was given.

"Curiously, his Majesty's strength seemed to wane after all these interventions and, as the end of his life seemed imminent, his doctors tried a last-ditch attempt by forcing more Raleigh's mixture, pearl julep and ammonia down the dying king's throat. Further treatment was rendered more difficult by the king's death."
We   can  be   sure  that  the  physicians gathered around the king's bed were all leaders in their particular field—royally and presidents do not settle for anything less.  But, as Proust observed, with hindsight we can now see the hideous error of their therapeutics.  Today, the skull  drops,  the  ammonia and the pigeon dung have long gone, but what will we say in a few years' time when we look back on the "highly respected" cancer therapeutics of 2002?  Will we dare to venture that there is nothing new under the Sun?   Have we really progressed much further?

Death of John Diamond, 2001

"He's been poisoned, blasted, had bits lopped off him, been in remission, felt lumps grow again, been given shreds of hope, had hope removed." (Nicci Gerrard, Sunday Observer, May 14, 2001)
Many thousands of people were touched by John Diamond's regular column in the London Times newspaper, giving stark and brutal insight into living with throat cancer. In a witty and very down-to-earth manner, John explored numerous life-with-cancer issues, including the ups and considerably more downs in body and mind during radiation treatment, the effects of his illness upon the wider family and the rediscovery of everyday wonders previously taken for granted. He showed his distaste for numerous cancer cliches such as "brave John" and "staying positive", replying: "I am not brave. I did not choose cancer. I am just me, dealing with it" and "Whenever somebody told me how good a positive attitude would be for me, what they really meant was how much easier a positive attitude would make it for them."
 
He was also well known for his castigation of almost all non-orthodox treatments, and for his willingness to submit to all that the medical orthodoxy had to offer—a service that even he, a conventional advocate, had variously described as "pay-as-you-bleed" and "surgical muggings".
For me, the most memorable images of John were captured in the BBC's Inside Story—a television programme that followed John during a year of treatment, showing him clearly suffering. An operation on John's throat caused him to lose his voice, which as a popular broadcaster was a serious blow. Later, through surgery and radiation treatment, he would lose most of his tongue and, with it, all sense of taste and the ability to eat properly—a double whammy, given that he was married to TV supercook Nigella Lawson.
In his extraordinary book, 'C: Because Cowards Get Cancer Too (which I could not put down), he wrote:
"He who didn't realise what a boon an unimpaired voice was, who ate his food without stopping to think about its remarkable flavour, who was criminally profligate with words, who took his wife and children and friends for granted—in short, he who didn't know he was living...""

John died in March 2001, aged 47, after having suffered dreadfully for four years. In his death, he joined sports presenter Helen Rollason, Bill "Compo" Owen, Ian Dury, Roy Castle, Cardinal Basil Hume, Linda McCartney and, most recently, ex-Beatle George Harrison, plus 152,500 others in the UK who succumb annually to the cancer ordeal.
Kate Law of the Cancer Research Campaign said that John's story helped to bring cancer out of the closet in Britain.
John's writings certainly brought home the ugliness of conventional treatment.
But the more informed in the cancer debate who have read John's columns and book will have recognised that John's writings, brilliant though they were, did not bring out the full story of cancer at all.

Side Effects of Chemotherapy

Consider the following statement from cancer specialist Professor Charles Mathe, who declared:
"If I contracted cancer, I would never go to a standard cancer treatment centre. Cancer victims who live far from such centres have a chance."
Walter Last, writing in The Ecologist, reported recently: "After analysing cancer survival statistics for several decades, Dr Hardin Jones, a professor at the University of California, concluded: '...patients are as well, or better off, untreated. Jones's disturbing assessment has never been refuted.'"
Or what about this? "Many medical oncologists recommend chemotherapy for virtually any tumour, with a hopefulness undiscouraged by almost invariable failure." (Albert Braverman, MD, "Medical Oncology inthe90s",La«ce/1991, vol. 337, p. 901)
Or this? "Most cancer patients in this country die of chemotherapy.

"After analysing cancer survival statistics for several decades, Dr Hardin Jones, a professor at the University of California, concluded: '...patients are as well, or better off, untreated.'"

Put simply, chemotherapy is an intravenously administered poison that kills all living matter

Chemotherapy does not eliminate breast, colon, or lung cancers. This fact has been documented for over a decade, yet doctors still use chemotherapy for these tumors." (Allen Levin, MD, UCSF, The Healing of Cancer)
Or even this?
"Despite widespread use of chemotherapies, breast cancer mor¬tality has not changed in the last 70 years." (Thomas Dao, MD, New England Journal of Medicine, March 1975, vol. 292, p. 707)
Chemotherapy is an invasive and toxic treatment able supposedly to eliminate cancer cells. Unfortunately, though, its ferocious chemistry is not able to differentiate between the cancerous cell or the healthy cell and surrounding healthy tissue.

Put simply, chemotherapy is an intravenously administered poison that kills all living matter. Repeated chemotherapy and repeated radiation treatments kill the whole body by degrees. The immune system is hit particularly hard by chemotherapy and often does not recuperate enough to protect adequately against common illnesses, which can then lead to death. Some 67 per cent of people who die during cancer treatment do so through opportunistic infections arising as a direct result of the immune system failing because of the aggressive and toxic nature of the drugs. What is this, if not death by doctoring?

And the side effects from both chemotherapy and radiation itself are extensive. They can include dizziness, skin discolouration, sensory loss, audio/visual impairment, nausea, diarrhoea, loss of hair, loss of appetite leading to malnutrition, loss of sex drive, loss of white blood cells, perma¬nent organ damage, organ failure, internal bleeding, tissue loss and cardiovascular leakage (artery deterioration), to name but a few.

Two years ago, Hazel was diagnosed with breast cancer.  She described her chemotherapy as the worst experience of her life: "This highly toxic fluid was being injected into my veins. The nurse administering it was wearing protective gloves because it would burn her skin if just a tiny drip came into contact with it. I couldn't help asking myself, 'If such precautions were needed to be taken on the outside, what is it doing to me on the inside?' From 7 pm that evening, I vomited solidly for two and a half days. During my treatment, I lost my hair by the handful, I lost my appetite, my skin colour, my zest for life. I was death on legs."

We shall be hearing more from Hazel later, although under very different circumstances.
It seems, though, that with chemotherapy we are once again looking at the acceptable face of King Charles's ammonia treatment and, once again, being administered by the highest physicians in the land. Similarly, on the toxicity of radiation "therapy", John Diamond noted that it was only when he began his treatment that he began to feel really ill.
Senior cancer physician Dr Charles Moertal, of the Mayo Clinic in the USA, stated: "Our most effective regimens are fraught with risks and side-effects and practical problems; and after this price is paid by all the patients we have treated, only a small fraction are rewarded with a transient period of usually incomplete tumor regressions... "
Dr Ralph Moss is the author of The Cancer Industry, a shocking expose of the world of conventional cancer politics and practice. Interviewed on the Laura Lee radio show in 1994, Moss stated: "In the end, there is no proof that chemotherapy actually extends life in the vast majority of cases, and this is the great lie about chemotherapy: that somehow there is a correlation between shrinking a tumour and extending the life of a patient."

Scientists based at McGill Cancer Center sent a questionnaire to 118 lung cancer doctors to determine what degree of faith these practising cancer physicians placed in the therapies they administered. They were asked to imagine that they had cancer, and were asked which of six current trials they would choose. Seventy-nine doctors responded, of which 64 would not consent to be in any trial containing Cisplatin—one of the common chemotherapy drugs they were trialling (currently achieving worldwide sales of about US$110,000,000 a year)—and 58 of the 79 found that all the trials in question were unacceptable due to the ineffectiveness of chemotherapy and its unacceptably high degree of toxicity.

The following extract is taken from Tim O'Shea at The Doctor Within: "A German epidemiologist from the Heidelberg/Mannheim Tumor Clinic, Dr Ulrich Abel, has done a comprehensive review and analysis of every major study and clinical trial of chemotherapy ever done. His conclusions should be read by anyone who is about to embark on the Chemo Express. To make sure he had reviewed everything ever published on chemotherapy, Abel sent letters to over 350 medical centers around the world, asking them to send him anything they had published on the subject. Abel researched thousands of articles: it is unlikely that anyone in the world knows more about chemotherapy than he.

"The analysis took him several years, but the results are astounding: Abel found that the overall worldwide success rate of chemotherapy was 'appalling' because there was simply no scientific evidence available anywhere that chemotherapy can 'extend in any appreciable way the lives of patients suffering from the most common organic cancers'. Abel emphasizes that chemotherapy rarely can improve the quality of life. He describes chemotherapy as 'a scientific wasteland' and states that at least 80 per cent of chemotherapy administered throughout the world is worthless and is akin to the 'emperor's new clothes'—neither doctor nor patient is willing to give up on chemotherapy, even though there is no scientific evidence that it works! (Lancet, 10 August 1991) No mainstream media even mentioned this comprehensive study: it was totally buried."

The Doctor-Patient Power Imbalance

Whilst in the main dismissing the "alternativist" treatments, as he called them, and writing in a generally confident manner about his trust in the conventional medical paradigm, John Diamond would sometimes waver: "What if those denying alternativists were right? What if the truth was that no life had ever been saved by radiotherapy and that there was every chance that my cancer would be made worse by it being irradiated? What if the truth as pronounced by a couple of books was that the main effect of cancer surgery was to release stray cancer cells into the body, allowing them to set up home.

Read also the second and the third part of this article.

Article from Nexus Magazine August-September 2002

yogaesoteric
 


 

Read also: