If I had cancer ...
Diagnosed With Cancer?
Here Are 11 Effective, Natural Strategies To
Kill Your Cancer
The information you need to beat cancer is here - available to you for free. You won't have to download a report or buy any book. In fact, some readers say that this report is better than the ebooks, and they purchased every one. Here you will find information your doctor can't tell you or doesn't know - including information on one product where 51 out of 65 stage 4 cancer patients became cancer free while using it during a 14 month study.
Other readers say this report provides the most understandable information they found about cancer. You'll learn what the underlying causes of cancer are, and what to do to counteract those causes. Effective actions that you can take to defeat cancer. This information applies to all types of cancer. Lung, prostate, breast, colon, ovarian, cervical, liver, pancreatic, bone, bladder, stomach, testicular, thyroid, kidney, throat, brain, mouth, uterine, esophageal, rectal and more. The fundamental causes of cancers are the same, so these strategies work for all of them.
My Personal Story About Surviving Stage 4 Cancer
My dance with cancer
Cancer Tutor - natural cancer treatments for advanced cancer
What is wrong with the medical community? Orthodox medicine could easily have a painless, 90% cure rate on newly diagnosed cancer patients (by using the highly documented Kelley protocol), yet they continue to use treatments which have less than a 3% cure rate!!
Don't believe the nonsense that the pharmaceutical industry, medical establishment, large cancer "charities" and our federal government are "looking" for new cancer cures. The medical establishment could have a 90% cure rate for cancer tomorrow if they really wanted to cure cancer. But they never want to cure cancer because that would cut into their profits.
Why a 3% Cure Rate?
Treating diseases as "chronic diseases" is a lot more profitable than curing diseases!
If I had terminal cancer
Dr. Ralph Moss has written the book, Questioning Chemotherapy, which documents the ineffectiveness of chemotherapy in treating most cancers. On November 19, 1977, he was fired for telling the public the truth. At a press conference on November 18th, he and the Second Opinion working group released a well-documented 48-page report that stated the top officials of the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center had lied about the results of a study performed at the center regarding "Laetrile"--(a natural, alternative cancer treatment).
Dr. Moss has gained credibility by writing eight books, including his most recent work, Cancer Therapy: The Independent Consumer's Guide to Non-Toxic Treatment. He also wrote The Cancer Industry, a documented research work telling of the enormous financial and political corruption in the "cancer establishment". He indicates that the motivating forces in cancer research and treatment are often power and money, and not the cure of cancer patients. He also writes, The Cancer Chronicles, a newsletter reporting on new cancer treatments and preventive measures.
Dr. Moss' work documents the ineffectiveness of chemotherapy on most forms of cancer. However, he is fair in pointing out that there are the following exceptions: Acute Iymphocytic leukemia, Hodgkin's disease, and nonseminomatous testicular cancer. Also, a few very rare forms of cancer, including choriocarcinoma, Wilm's tumor, and retinoblastoma. But all of these account for only 2% to 4% of all cancers occurring in the United States. This leaves some 96% to 98% of other cancers, in which chemotherapy doesn't eliminate the disease. The vast majority of cancers, such as breast, colon, and lung cancer are barely touched by chemotherapy. However, there is another category where chemotherapy has a relatively minor effect--The most "successful" of these is in Stage 3 ovarian cancer, where chemotherapy appears to extend life by perhaps eighteen months, and small-cell lung cancer in which chemotherapy might offer six more months.
Effective cancer treatment is a matter of definition. The FDA defines an "effective" drug as one which achieves a 50% or more reduction in tumor size for 28 days. In the vast majority of cases there is absolutely no correlation between shrinking tumors for 28 days and the cure of the cancer or extension of life.
When the cancer patient hears the doctor say "effective," he or she thinks, and logically so, that "effective" means it cures cancer. But all it means is temporary tumor shrinkage.
Chemotherapy usually doesn't cure cancer or extend life, and it really does not improve the quality of the life either, on the contrary, it can greatly decrease the quality of life. Doctors frequently make this claim though. There are thousands of studies that were reviewed by Dr. Moss as part of the research for his book--and there is not one single good study documenting this claim.
What patients consider "good quality of life" seems to differ from what the doctors consider. To most it is just common sense that a drug that makes you throw up, and lose your hair, and wrecks your immune system is not improving your quality of life. Chemotherapy can give you life-threatening mouth sores. People can slough the entire lining of the intestines! One longer-term effect is particularly tragic: people who've had chemotherapy no longer respond to nutritional or immunologically-based approaches to their cancers. And since chemotherapy doesn't cure 96% to 98% of all cancers anyway...People who take chemotherapy have sadly lost their chance of finding another sort of cure.
It's especially telling that in a number of surveys most chemotherapists have said they would not take chemotherapy themselves or recommend it for their families. Chemotherapy drugs are the most toxic substances ever put deliberately into the human body. They are known poisons, they are designed poisons. The whole thing began with experiments with "mustard gas," the horrible chemical-warfare agents from World War I.
Dr. Moss' position on chemotherapy is supported by many major students of the study of cancer treatment. Following are some examples: Dr. John Bailar is the chief of epidemiology at McGill University in Montreal and was formerly the editor of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute. In 1986 the New England Journal of Medicine published an article by Dr. Bailer and Dr. Elaine Smith, a colleague from the University of Iowa. Bailer and Smith wrote: "Some 35 years of intense and growing efforts to improve the treatment of cancer have not had much overall effect on the most fundamental measure of clinical outcome - death. nbsp The effort to control cancer has failed so far to obtain its objectives."
Dr. John Cairns, a professor of microbiology at Harvard, published his view in Scientific American in 1985, "that basically the war on cancer was a failure and that chemotherapy was not getting very far with the vast majority of cancers."
As far back as 1975, Nobel Laureate James Watson of DNA fame was quoted in the New York Times saying that the American public had been "sold a nasty bill of goods about cancer."
In 1991, Dr. Albert Braverman, Professor of Hematology and Oncology at the State University of New York, Brooklyn, published an article in Lancet titled "Medical Oncology in the 1990s," in which he wrote: "The time has come to cut back on the clinical investigation of new chemotherapeutic regimens for cancer and to cast a critical eye on the way chemotherapeutic treatment is now being administered."
Dr. Braverman says that there is no solid tumor incurable in 1976 that is curable today. Dr. Moss confirms this and claims that the greatest breakthrough in the objective study of chemotherapy came from a biostatistician at the University of Heidelberg, Dr. Ulrich Abel. His critique focused on whether chemotherapy effectively prolonged survival in advanced epithelial cancer. His answer was that it is not effective. He summarized and extended his findings and concluded that chemotherapy overall is ineffective. A recent search turned up exactly zero reviews of his work in American journals, even though it was published in 1990. The belief is that this is not because his work was unimportant--but because it's irrefutable.
With the extensive documentation in Dr. Moss' book, and all the statistics developed by the experts, why is chemotherapy still pushed by the large majority of oncologists? Dr. Moss feels that "there's a tremendous conflict going on in the minds of honest, sensitive, caring oncologists." They're in a very difficult position because they've been trained to give these drugs. And they've devoted many years to reaching a very high level of expertise in the knowledge of poisonous, deadly compounds. They're really in a bind, because they went into oncology to help the cancer patient, yet the tools they've been given don't work. And they see what happens to physicians who "step out of line" and treat cancer with alternative means.
Armed raids, loss of licensure, professional smearing and ostracism are some of the consequences. These could all be related to the quotation in the book made by Dr. Lundberg, editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association. At a recent National Institute of Health meeting, he said of chemotherapy: "[It's] a marvelous opportunity for rampant deceit. So much money is there to be made that ethical principles can be overrun sometimes in a stampede to get at physicians and prescribers." You never heard that on the evening news.
The economics of cancer treatment are astounding. Cancer treatment is close to $100 billion annually ($100,000,000,000). The chemotherapy part of that by 2005 will be up to $12.5 billion.
Looking from another angle: the Bristol Myers company owns patents on twelve of the nearly forty "FDA-approved" chemotherapeutic drugs. The president, past president, chairman of the board, and a couple of the directors of Bristol Myers all hold positions on the board at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center.
Dr. Moss' book details the failures (and very few successes) for chemotherapy with more than fifty types of cancer, includes a complete description of the major chemotherapy drugs, and has a section about questions to ask your doctor.
We are obviously losing ground with conventional cancer treatment, because the death rates keep going up. The reason for this is because conventional treatment is based on a faulty standard: That the body must be purged of cancer by aggressive and toxic methods such as surgery chemotherapy and radiation therapy. This, of course, seemed reasonable back in 1894 when William Halsted, M.D. did the first radical mastectomy, but it has proven to be so wrong over the last 50 years that continuing to adhere to it constitutes more fraud than honest mistake. However, this standard still dominates conventional cancer therapy, and until that changes, we will continue to lose ground with cancer.
Dr. Whitaker, a firm believer in Dr. Moss' work and alternative cancer therapy goes on to give some of his personal views:
Alternative cancer treatment
Most people select an alternative treatment because it worked for a friend or because their research showed that it was the "best" treatment. Although these selection methods have some merits, they ignore an individual's body chemistry.
Each of these treatments work on 25% to 50% of the people who try them. Therefore, people take multiple treatments to increase their odds. This can cause conflicts. The Test Kit allows you to quickly find the treatment to which your body best responds and avoid conflicts.
This type of testing is unfamiliar to most people. Therefore, you are urged to read the Principles of Operation section to see that the principles behind the Test Kit are indeed well established.
Why Use a Test Kit
This type of testing has two functions:
These two functions are explained directly below.
From 1997 to 2001 hundreds of case histories were collected through the former web site, The Cancell Home page. They showed that more than 30% of the responders took substances that were known to conflict with each other. Here is an example of why it is impossible to anticipate all the conflicts between different supplements:
Using the Test Kit
The usual methods of selecting an alternative cancer treatment, such as "It worked for a friend of mine" ignore the fact that every one's body chemistry is different. Unlike chemo, alternative cancer treatments work with your body. It is body chemistry that determines if an alternative cancer treatment will work for you. Since, most alternative cancer treatments only work for a minority, you must test the treatment on yourself not use your friend's experience as an indicator of an effective treatment. Taking one treatment, and nothing else, for a few weeks to see if it is working for you is not practical. The Test Kit is the only practical method of treatment selection that takes your body chemistry into account.
Alternative, revealing AIDS and cancer cures
The knowledge and truth contained within our fully referenced medical (216 page) e-book will set you free from pharmaceutical slavery.
Learn the secrets that the pharmaceutical multinationals invest time and money for, to make sure these therapies remain hidden from public attention and knowledge.