TREATMENT OF CANCER USING TOXIC CHEMICALS "Cancer researchers, medical journals, and the popular media all have contributed to a situation in which many people with common malignancies are being treated with drugs not known to be effective." Dr. Martin Shapiro UCLA First, it is important to consider the methodology of chemotherapy to better understand why, by its very nature, it cannot be effective. These drugs are highly toxic to all cells and not just cancer cells. Generally, they are more deadly to healthy tissue than they are to the malignant cell. The cellular poisons used in orthodox cancer therapy cannot distinguish between cancer and non-cancer cells. They instead differentiate between cells that are fast-growing and those that are slow-growing or not growing at all. Cells that are actively dividing are the targets. Consequently, they kill, not only the cancer cells that are dividing, but also a multitude of normal cells all over the body that also are caught in the act of dividing. In theory, those cancers that are dividing more rapidly than normal cells will be killed before the patient is, but it is nip and tuck for the duration of treatment. In the case of a cancer that is dividing at the same rate or even slower than normal cells, there is not even a theoretical chance of success. The resulting pain and illness often is far worse than the disease itself. The toxins catch the blood cells in the act of dividing and cause blood poisoning. The gastrointestinal system is thrown into convulsion causing a whole host of side effects, including nausea, diarrhea, loss of appetite, cramps and progressive weakness. Hair cells are fast-growing, so the hair falls out during treatment. Reproductive organs are affected causing sterility. The brain becomes fatigued. Eyesight and hearing are impaired. Every conceivable function is disrupted. Apart from immediate toxicity, such treatment, even when effective, can increase the subsequent risk of developing a second cancer by more than tenfold. There is a pharmaceutical drug introduced in 2004 by the company of Genentech called Avastin which targets cancerous cells in a more effective manner. It is now being used in an investigational capacity in breast, lung, ovarian and pancreatic cancer although originally approved for use in advanced colorectal cancer. However, studies show that Avastin merely PROLONGS the lives of patients with late-stage breast and lung cancer by several months and only when the drug is combined with existing therapies. The price tag for this treatment that, again, offers no cure is $100,000. One would imagine you might expect more than several extra months and an empty bank account to justify the excitement surrounding this drug. The advent of targeted agents over the past few years seemed to promise a more rational and subtle approach to the treatment of cancer. However, there are disturbing side effects with the use of Avastin and much more research is necessary to determine its effectiveness and safety. ALTERNATIVE THERAPIES VS. CONVENTIONAL TREATMENT The multimillion-dollar campaign against quackery was never meant to root out incompetent doctors; it was, and is, designed specifically to destroy alternative medicine." Dr. Robert C. Atkins "The Healing of Cancer" Now consider this: If it is clear that Orthodox treatment of cancer is (1) toxic, (2) immunosuppressant, and (3) carcinogenic, then why would the doctors continue to use it? If you are to make an objective decision as to your own treatment, it is important to consider the process by which pharmaceutical drugs are given legitimacy in medical practice over natural therapies. When the FDA says a therapy is proven to be effective, it means only that its promoters have complied with the testing protocols as set by the agency to demonstrate safety and effectiveness. The successful completion of those tests does not mean, as the terminology suggests, that the therapy is safe and effective. It merely means that tests have indeed been conducted, the results have been evaluated, the FDA has given its approval for marketing, often in spite of the dismal results. In fact, the FDA's guidelines are designed to establish the lethal dose - the point at which the therapy will kill 50% of the patients - and also to establish the ratio between those who are benefited and those who are not. The ratio is often in the range of only eight or nine people out of a hundred. Furthermore, the term "benefited" can mean any slight improvement such as a temporary reduction in tumor size thus skewing results. It almost never means a complete cure. If anything is "proven" by these studies, it is that most FDA-approved cancer therapies are both unsafe and ineffective and should be avoided at all costs. Most importantly, you need to understand why natural supplements can never compete in the arena of standardized medicine. According to the FDA, "Substances found in nature cannot be patented; only those which are invented by man." Therefore, a natural supplement cannot hold a patent and if you cannot hold a patent there is absolutely no motivation to spend billions of dollars and 8 to 10 years researching a product that will then be immediately copied by your competitors. The one exception is that a patent can be held on the process by which a natural product is developed. The cancer industry has been given a century of access to a diseased public as guinea pigs in its toxic drug experiment with very little to show for its efforts. At times it appears as though the war is not being fought against the disease but rather against an ignorant populace. Isn't it time we give alternative medicine a chance to assist us at prevention and treatment of this persistent disease? Copyright 2006 Paula Rothstein |
