| Extracted from Nexus
Magazine,
Volume 9, Number 5 (Aug-Sept 2002) PO Box 30, Mapleton Qld 4560 Australia. editor@nexusmagazine.com Telephone: +61 (0)7 5442 9280; Fax: +61 (0)7 5442 9381 From our web page at: www.nexusmagazine.com |
© by Steven Ransom © 2002 Research Director, Credence Publications, UK Telephone: +44 (0)1622 832386 Email: steve1@onetel.net.uk Website: http://www.credence.org |
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
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.1 In the United States, the annual death rate for this disease is approximately 547,000.2. 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 pharmaceuticals--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 conventional 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 annually, 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.
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 administered, 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."3.
We can be sure that the physicians gathered around the king's bed were all leaders in their particular field--royalty 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?
"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 clichés 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."4.
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.
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."5.
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.'"6.
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 in the 90s", Lancet 1991, vol.
337, p. 901)
Or this?
"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)
Or even this?
"Despite widespread use of chemotherapies, breast cancer mortality
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.7 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, permanent 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."8.
Dr Ralph Moss is the author of The Cancer Industry, a shocking exposé 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."9
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.10
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."10a
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 elsewhere?. I turned to the medical books for solace and got none."11
Talk with cancer patients and one soon discovers that many of them report that, although they have an uncomfortable gut feeling that there must somehow be a better way forward, they still find themselves returning to their oncologist for more of the same uncomfortable treatment. Why is this, when there are proven, non-conventional and non-harmful treatments readily available?
Surely, one significant factor is our hereditary submissive attitude to the medical orthodoxy and its archetypal symbolism: the white coat, the stethoscope, the years of knowledge represented in those framed degrees. Every artefact speaks of our being in the hands of experts. And then there is the added pressure that can be exerted upon the patient at the point of diagnosis by the cancer physician.
In his essay entitled "The $200 Billion Scam", Jeff Kamen reports on
how a cancer diagnosis was delivered to Kathy Keeton, the late wife of
Penthouse magazine magnate Bob Guccione:
"'I'm sorry,' she remembers her doctor saying. 'It's a very rare form
of the disease. It's the nature of this kind of cancer that it takes off
at a gallop and metastasizes quickly, so we need to act quickly and get
you started on chemotherapy at once. We have some of the best people in
the world in this field. I urge you to let me get you into their expert
care. There is no time to waste. This form of cancer is often fatal, and
quickly so. Untreated, you have six weeks to live. We really must move
aggressively with the chemo.'"11a
Hazel recalls a similar experience:
"Basically, I was in shock from the diagnosis. I was sitting there,
with the doctor saying that this treatment was the best available and
that it was actually a matter of life or death that I received it. My
husband was sitting next to me, telling me that I needed to go along
with it. I kind of went into a trance and, although something didn't
feel quite right, I found myself nodding to chemotherapy."
Most definitely, the power imbalance that exists in all doctor-patient relationships (whence comes the term "shrink" in psychiatry) is a key agent in determining the direction of treatment.
Aside from this very powerful influence, a mass exodus away from conventional cancer treatment towards proven, non-conventional treatments has also been severely hampered by the negative effects of the vast sea of confusing, conflicting and often bizarre information out there, posing as "helpful" alternative cancer advice. A first-timer seeking alternative advice on the Internet, for instance, can soon become thoroughly disheartened. Some 4,000 links come up under "alternative cancer treatment" alone!
An anxious patient, with no time to separate the wheat from the chaff, is then faced with having to make a series of calculations, based solely on his negative experiences on the Internet and a sort of blind, desperate faith that, somehow, the well-qualified oncologist has got to be right.
"And didn't he warn us that there were a lot of Internet kooks out there?" The patient is then right back to square one and, by default, the chemotherapy suggested earlier seems overall to be the "safest" bet.
In the view of health reporter Phillip Day, author of Cancer: Why
We're Still Dying to Know The Truth:
"Many people just gulp, enter the cancer tunnel and hope they come
out the other end."
But despite the fact that an Internet search can very easily generate confusion, there is actually a wealth of expertly documented, credible information available on natural and genuinely efficacious treatments for a variety of serious illnesses, including cancer--information that, in some instances, has been in existence for many years.
But information on such treatments is not widely available in the public domain--perhaps because genuine medicine has had to fight tremendously hard to be heard clearly. And there are particular reasons why this has been so. Often, it is not so much where to look for genuine natural treatment and medical advice as how to look for it.
Before discussing specific cancer treatments in more depth, it is important that we briefly examine the reasons for the current levels of confusion surrounding genuine natural medicine as a whole: wilful distortion, unwitting stupidity, you name it. Conventional and alternative, it's taking place on both sides of the fence. We must learn to read between the lines.
Proponents of genuine natural treatments for serious illnesses have always had to fight on several fronts in their long, hard battle for proper recognition of these treatments. They have had to do battle with those calculating opportunists--the forked-tongued drug merchants--who use every trick in the book to undermine any genuine treatments not under their own jurisdiction and employ all means possible to disseminate their damaging disinformation as far and wide as possible in order to protect their own lucrative markets. No department, private or public, is beyond the reach of the drug merchants' all-consuming influence.
Thriller writer John Le Carré spent many years working in the British
Foreign Office and knows the politics of big business very well. His
most recent book, The Constant Gardener, focuses on the corrupt
nature of the pharmaceutical industry. In an interview on the subject,
Le Carré stated recently:
"Big Pharma is engaged in the deliberate seduction of the medical
profession, country by country, worldwide. It is spending a fortune on
influencing, hiring and purchasing academic judgement to a point where,
in a few years' time, if Big Pharma continues unchecked on its present
happy path, unbought medical opinion will be hard to find."12
In opposition to the incessant drive by Big Business to dominate our health choices, Dr Matthias Rath provides a concise summary of the primary ethics of the merchant's house:
"Throughout the 20th century, the pharmaceutical industry has been constructed by investors, the goal being to replace effective but non-patentable natural remedies with mostly ineffective but patentable and highly profitable pharmaceutical drugs. The very nature of the pharmaceutical industry is to make money from ongoing diseases. Like other industries, the pharmaceutical industry tries to expand their market--that is, to maintain ongoing diseases and to find new diseases for their drugs. Prevention and cure of diseases damages the pharmaceutical business and the eradication of common diseases threatens its very existence.
"Therefore, the pharmaceutical industry fights the eradication of any disease at all costs. The pharmaceutical industry itself is the main obstacle, why today's most widespread diseases are further expanding, including heart attacks, strokes, cancer, high blood pressure, diabetes, osteoporosis and many others. Pharmaceutical drugs are not intended to cure diseases. According to health insurers, over 24,000 pharmaceutical drugs are currently marketed and prescribed without any proven therapeutic value. (AOK Magazine, 4/98)
"According to medical doctors' associations, the known dangerous side-effects of pharmaceutical drugs have become the fourth leading cause of death after heart attacks, cancer and strokes. (Journal of the American Medical Association, April 15, 1998)
"Millions of people and patients around the world are defrauded twice. A major portion of their income is used up to finance the exploding profits of the pharmaceutical industry. In return, they are offered a medicine that does not even cure."
Dr Rath is currently spearheading the fight against the pharmaceutical industries as they seek to legislate against our free use of vitamins and minerals. If this legislation is passed, it will directly affect you in many ways. Please visit website http://www.vitamins-for-all.org right now and sign the petition. It will only take 30 seconds and is so important. And such is the nature of the information still to come on this site, I have every confidence that you will be right back!
Writing in the UK Guardian on February 7, 2002, senior health editor Sarah Bosely reported:
"Scientists are accepting large sums of money from drug companies to put their names to articles, endorsing new medicines, that they have not written--a growing practice that some fear is putting scientific integrity in jeopardy."12a
These supposed guardians of our health are being paid what to say. Said one physician in the article:
"What day is it today? I'm just working out what drug I'm supporting today."
From top to bottom, 21st century medicine is being bought and taught to think of all medical treatment in terms of pharmaceutical intervention only. While the politicking and big business string-pulling is taking place behind the scenes, our minds are being washed with the constant froth of emotive, unfounded, pro-establishment, populist headlines such as: "Another breakthrough at UCLA!." (Yes, but with mice!) "It's in the genes!" (Another £5 million now will help us to isolate the gene in 2010.perhaps.) "Excitement at latest oncology findings!" (Buoyant opening paragraph, descending into the usual mixture of hope extinguished by caution and the obligatory appeal to the pocket.) "Cancer vaccine close!" (Yes, and close since 1975, actually. But please, continue to give generously, because next time it could be you!)
And so it goes on. And all the while, the mortality statistics worsen. Yet still, the money--our money--just keeps on rolling in. On that note, the Campaign Against Fraudulent Medical Research has warned:
"The next time you are asked to donate to a cancer organisation, bear in mind that your money will be used to sustain an industry which has been deemed by many eminent scientists as a qualified failure and by others as a complete fraud."13
Thanks go to Dr Tim O'Shea for the following very important
information on the practice of mammography:
"This is one topic where the line between advertising and scientific
proof has become very blurred. As far back as 1976, the American Cancer
Society itself and its government colleague, the National Cancer
Institute, terminated the routine use of mammography for women under the
age of 50 because of its 'detrimental' (carcinogenic) effects. More
recently, a large study done in Canada found that women who had routine
mammograms before the age of 50 also had increased death rates from
breast cancer by 36%. (Miller)
"Lorraine Day notes the same findings in her video presentation, Cancer Doesn't Scare Me Any More. The reader is directed to these sources and should perhaps consider the opinion of other sources than those selling the procedure, before making a decision.
"John McDougall, MD, has made a thorough review of pertinent literature on mammograms. He points out that the US$5-13 billion per year generated by mammograms controls the information that women get. Fear and incomplete data are the tools commonly used to persuade women to get routine mammograms. What is clear is that mammography cannot prevent breast cancer or even the spread of breast cancer. By the time a tumour is large enough to be detected by mammography, it has been there as long as 12 years! It is therefore ridiculous to advertise mammography as 'early detection'. (McDougall, p. 114)
"The other unsupportable illusion is that mammograms prevent breast cancer, which they don't. On the contrary, the painful compression of breast tissue during the procedure itself can increase the possibility of metastasis by as much as 80%! Dr McDougall notes that between 10% and 17% of the time, breast cancer is a self-limiting, non-life-threatening type called 'ductal carcinoma in situ'. This harmless cancer can be made active by the compressive force of routine mammography. (McDougall, p. 105)
"Most extensive studies show no increased survival rate from routine screening mammograms. After reviewing all available literature in the world on the subject, noted researchers Drs Wright and Mueller of the University of British Columbia recommended the withdrawal of public funding for mammography screening because the 'benefit achieved is marginal, and the harm caused is substantial'. (Lancet, July 1, 1995)
"The harm they're referring to includes the constant worrying and emotional distress, as well as the tendency for unnecessary procedures and testing to be done, based on results which have a false positive rate as high as 50%." (New York Times, December 14, 1997)13a
Whilst the remit of this article does not extend to a full exploration of the influence that money has had over the corruption of true medicine and medical practice, let the reader be assured that conventional medicine has more than its fair share of attendant commercial pressures, and especially so in the world of cancer, as we shall soon discover.
Aside from the wiles of the merchant, genuine medicine also has always had to do battle with the well-intentioned parahealer,14 who unwittingly has the capacity to prove equally as threatening to the cause, but for very different reasons. The non-conventional medical marketplace seems to be dominated by those who are able to deliver an admirably coherent deconstruction of the conventional paradigm, but who choose not to apply the same level of intelligent critique to their own, often wacky, nostrums.
As such, we are subjected to an equally misguided barrage of pronouncements, for example: "Submit not to the ravages of chemo--let White Eagle purge you of those negative energies"; "Visit a pyramid, a shaman ('My sickness is a shamanic gift and calling'14a), a cancer 'guide' ('Okay, group. Eyes closed. Your cancer is receding. The lump is disintegrating. Envisage the all-consuming fire!')" A coat of mud, of seaweed or both, some psycho-surgery, some radionics, this therapy, that therapy and, of course, a thousand-and-one folk remedies: grandma's trusted "brain tumour elixir" perhaps, a walnut kernel perfectly preserved in rainwater (seven drops, three times a day).
Celebrities with the more serious illnesses receive these well-intentioned "tips and tricks" by the sackload. John Diamond was no exception:
"I've had anecdotal evidence from those who believe in voodoo, the power of the fairy people--yes, really--drinking my own p**s and any number of other remedies. I should put my faith in the Bessarabian radish, the desiccated root of which has been used for centuries by Tartar nomads to cure athlete's foot, tennis elbow and cancer, as detailed in their book, Why Your Doctor Hates You And Wants You To Die, review copy enclosed."15
Notwithstanding the genuine treatments available in the natural cabinet (we shall discuss this in part two), a huge number of remedies being sold as "medicine" today contain no sensible methodology--yet, amazingly, they are selling very well. No better is this phenomenon illustrated than in the lucrative minor ailments market, where, on a daily basis across the world, untold millions are being spent on pharmacologically inert mixtures and "essences", producing truly marvellous results with illnesses from which we were going to get better anyway.16
In truth, were the general public to be given clear information on the nature of self-limiting illness and on the wondrous ability of a properly nourished immune system to overcome almost all ills unaided, the bottom would fall out of the minor ailments market tomorrow, both conventional and alternative.
Unfortunately, though, any of the more awkward questions arising from this discussion, such as "How can you continue to sell these ointments as 'medicines' in the light of this knowledge?", are usually defended not by answering the actual question itself, but by the therapist appealing to the worthiness of his wider philanthropic goals and to "the much greater threat to the global populace" posed by the merchant's house with all its toxic wares, etcetera, etcetera.
Donald Gould, author of The Black and White Medicine Show, has warned of the dangers we invite by adopting such laissez-faire reasoning:
"Why not make the most of what the non-conformists have to offer and to hell with uncharitable logic? There is, I suggest, a powerful reason for rejecting this superficially attractive option. Truth is a fundamental value. If we accept uncritical thinking in one area of our lives for the sake of convenience or because of the popular appeal of a seductive myth and the short-term comfort to be gained by believing in the unbelievable, or because the false answer lets us pretend we are competently coping with a painful problem we haven't truly tackled, then we are all the more likely to adopt the same strategy in other situations, from dealing with the family to managing the national economy, and from chairing the parish council to handling arsenals of nuclear weapons. The result is likely to be unhappy and stands a decent chance of proving a disaster. Irrational beliefs are always dangerously corrupting, even when they only relate to the cause and cure of piles."17
But what relevance does all this have to the debate on treatments for cancer? Where is all of this headed? This has been a necessary diversion--firstly, that we might begin to understand some of the frustrations that many reasoned thinkers have with the issues raised; and secondly, that we might begin to consider the impact that such weakened thinking has on genuine natural treatments for disease. For instance, what damage is secondarily being wrought upon the reputation of the genuine treatments in the cabinet, the ones that can actually heal?
Sadly, there is no clear division between the reputation of much of the unregulated alternative health industry and that of the many sensible and proven, non-conventional treatments available today. It has all become a horrible blur and is a point of major concern even to the non-orthodox regulatory bodies overseeing the alternative/complementary health movement. The whole arena is fraught with as many vested interests and misunderstandings as conventional health, but commentaries drawing such conclusions--even from those concerned bodies sympathetic to the natural approach--are viewed as almost heretical and somehow betraying the brotherhood of the alternative hierarchy.
Personally speaking, critical debate should commence as soon as possible with regard to those "helping" therapies that only temporarily distract the seriously ill. In need only of sensible advice and sensible treatment, these people can very quickly end up worse off in body, mind and spirit--and, last but not least, in pocket--leading very quickly to derision and a carte blanche dismissal of all the good that genuine natural treatments have to offer.
John Diamond stated that there was as much chance of his going down the alternative treatment route as there was of the Pope getting drunk on the communion wine and getting off with a couple of nuns.18 Whilst we can perhaps understand some of John Diamond's frustrations, his comparisons don't exactly aid the cause. Because the truth is that the alternativist's cabinet is not all "mumbo jumbo" by any means. Genuine medicine can be found in there.
Perhaps a name change is in order. Are we alternative? Are we complementary? But complementary to what? To chemotherapy, perhaps? But then, what medicine could possibly complement chemotherapy? Shouldn't there just be medicine and non-medicine, full stop? Be that as it may, many people are wrongly assuming that the non-orthodox medical cabinet is barren and not worthy of closer inspection.
The hazy and often crazy information being disseminated on numerous non-conventional treatments, coupled with our innate and naïve trust in the orthodoxy, is the reason why thousands of people like John Diamond are staying with, and relying upon, conventional treatments for serious illnesses including cancer. As a result, thousands of people like John Diamond are dying, and often in a horrible fashion.
In his UK Observer article entitled "Quacks on the Rack", John Diamond summarily dismissed what is arguably the most famous of the natural and proven anti-cancer treatments known to man: the natural extract of the apricot kernel, otherwise known as vitamin B17.
"Supporters of laetrile (vitamin B17) and Essiac, in particular, made so much noise about their miracle cures that both have been through the research mill on numerous occasions and found to be useless."19
Now we can ask ourselves whether it was perhaps the fault of some kindly but misguided soul who posted John Diamond an essay on the benefits of vitamin B17 mixed with walnut water which caused him to dismiss B17 so emphatically. Or was it that John actually trusted the conventional research reports he had accrued on this vitamin? Interestingly, Dr Dean Burk, the former head of the Cytochemistry Department of the National Cancer Institute and one of the co-founders of this famous American medical institution, had personally worked on vitamin B17. He described this substance in very different terms:
"When we add laetrile to a cancer culture under the microscope," said Dr Burk, "providing the enzyme glucosidase also is present, we can see the cancer cells dying off like flies."20
(Glucosidase is the enzyme heavily present in cancerous cells, which triggers the unique cancer-destroying mechanism found in vitamin B17. An excellent clinical analysis of this mechanism is found in B17 Metabolic Therapy - In the Prevention and Control of Cancer, a concise history of the research into this vitamin, including many clinical assessments.21)
Dr Burk also stated that evidence for laetrile's efficacy had been noted in at least five independent institutions in three widely separated countries of the world.22
So whom do we trust in this matter? Diamond or Burk? By looking at where John Diamond might have got his B17 research "information", the ugly features of conventional cancer research move more sharply into focus.
Cancer is big business, and knowledge claims on any treatments that earn money and, conversely, on any treatments that do not earn money for the drug companies are never neutral.
Dr Ralph Moss served as the Assistant Director of Public Affairs at America's most famous cancer research institution, Memorial Sloan-Kettering in Manhattan. He knows the cancer industry inside out. Read what he had to say in an April 1994 interview with Laura Lee, and judge for yourself the quality of the evidence against the effectiveness of vitamin B17:
Dr Moss: "Shortly after I went to work [at the Sloan-Kettering Cancer Institute], I visited the elderly Japanese scientist Kanematsu Sugiura, who astonished me when he told me he was working on laetrile (B17). At the time it was the most controversial thing in cancer, reputed to be a cure for cancer. We in Public Affairs were giving out statements that laetrile was worthless, it was quackery, and that people should not abandon proven therapies. I was astonished that our most distinguished scientist would be bothering with something like this, and I said, 'Why are you doing this if it doesn't work?' He took down his lab books and showed me that, in fact, laetrile was dramatically effective in stopping the spread of cancer."
Laura Lee: "So this is verified, that laetrile can have this positive effect?"
Moss: "We were finding this and yet we in Public Affairs were told to issue statements to the exact opposite of what we were finding scientifically."23
Unable to sit on this information, Dr Moss later called a press conference of his own and, before a battery of reporters and cameramen, charged that Sloan-Kettering officials had engineered a massive cover-up. He provided all the supporting documents and named all the names necessary to validate his case. The following day he was fired for "failing to carry out his most basic job responsibilities".24
Similarly, in his book, World Without Cancer, cancer industry researcher G. Edward Griffin notes:
"Every laetrile study had been tarnished with the same kind of scientific ineptitude, bias and outright deception Some of these studies openly admitted evidence of anti-cancer effect, but hastened to attribute this effect to other causes. Some were toxicity studies only, which means that they weren't trying to see if laetrile was effective, but merely to determine how much of it was required to kill the patient."25
The "evidence" supporting John Diamond's claim that vitamin B17 is useless and even dangerous is available in abundance in all of the major cancer institutions today. Well, of course it is! We're in the merchant's house, don't forget!
As Pat Rattigan, author of The Cancer Business, reports:
"The threat to the cancer business from effective therapies was taken very seriously from the beginning. By the 1940s, the Syndicate had 300,000 names on its 'quack' files. Vitamin B17, being a unique threat due to its simplicity, attracted more concentrated attacks than all the other treatments put together: fraudulent test reports; hired, banner-carrying pickets outside clinics; rigged juries; newspaper character assassinations; dismissal of heretic employees; etc. The FDA, orchestrating the onslaught, sent out 10,000 posters and hundreds of thousands of leaflets warning about the dangers of the toxicity of the non-toxic substance. Earlier, a Congressional Accounting Office had found that 350 FDA employees had shares in, or had refused to declare an interest in, the pharmaceutical industry."26
The American Food and Drug Administration issued one such story about the death of an 11-month-old girl, supposedly from cyanide poisoning due to her apparently swallowing her father's vitamin B17 tablets. Cancer specialist and B17 advocate Dr Harold Manner takes up the story:
"I was lecturing in Buffalo, New York and.after I had made some strong statements, a man stood up and said, 'Dr Manner, how in the world can you make statements like that when the FDA is making these other statements?' I reiterated that the FDA statements were lies. He said, 'Look at this little girl in upstate New York; she took her father's laetrile tablets and died of cyanide poisoning.' Just then, a little lady stood up: 'Dr Manner, let me answer that question. I think I am entitled to because I am that little baby's mother. That baby never touched her father's laetrile tablets. The doctor, knowing the father was on laetrile, marked down "possible cyanide poisoning". At the hospital they used a cyanide antidote and it was the antidote that killed the child. And yet that statement will continue to appear, even though they know it is a lie.'"27
The scare stories always focus on the minute amounts of naturally occurring cyanide found in vitamin B17. But no mention is made in any of these stories of the wondrous mechanism governing the release of this cyanide. No harm is done to the person eating this vitamin (if that were the case, we've consumed enough apricots, apples, peaches, cherries, etc. containing B17 to have finished us off long ago). The cyanide is released only when cancerous cells are recognised by their high glucosidase content. B17 cyanide attacks cancer cells specifically. No large amounts of glucosidase detected means no cyanide release. Rest assured, there is no evidence that vitamin B17 can kill--unless, of course, one is accidentally crushed under a pallet of the stuff!
A further embarrassment for the cancer orthodoxy must surely be the research being carried out at the Imperial College in London, where researchers are looking at ways of using naturally occurring plant cyanide specifically to attack human bowel tumours. The idea came about after studying the pattern of specific cyanide release in the almond and cassava fruit which protects them from insect attack. Another one of those natural wonders, just crying out to be heard, is at last being listened to by the orthodoxy, perhaps?28
Very sadly, in assessing the deservedness of the "shady" reputation bestowed upon vitamin B17 metabolic therapy, we realise it is entirely unwarranted and that, instead, there has been a sustained attack by the conventional cancer industry on this treatment--an attack that has been carried on in one form or another for the last 40 years.
As mentioned earlier, with global spending on conventional cancer running into the hundreds of billions annually, a naturally occurring cancer cure of any description is an unwanted intruder.
Here is Dr Moss, again from the April 1994 Laura Lee interview, this time
on the money involved in conventional cancer:
Moss: "About 630,000 people die every year of cancer in the US, and it
really is an epidemic disease. We have got a tremendous industry. Every one
of those people who is getting cancer and dying of it is going to be
treated, and these treatments are extremely expensive. Chemo is [costed at]
tens of thousands, sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars. A bone marrow
transplant, which is basically another way of giving chemotherapy, or
radiation, can run to about $150,000 per person, and is almost never
effective. It kills about 25 per cent of the patients."
Lee: "Why carry on doing it?"
Moss: "Because of the money, which is tremendous."29
When we understand the amounts of money involved, we can begin to understand the in-house desire to sustain a "fact-creating" process in support of conventional treatment. Conventional cancer treatment and cancer research are a licence to print money. Most definitely, conventional interested parties and institutions have colluded in a shameful anti-vitamin B17 "fact-creating" process, which in turn has surely led to the early and unnecessary deaths of thousands upon thousands of people.
As for John Diamond's dismissal of vitamin B17, he didn't write his comments on B17 as an intentional slur. He wasn't the forked tongue in this chain of events. He desperately wanted to live. His single paragraph read by thousands was just another example of the damaging knock-on effect of merchant-speak. Merchant-speak on vitamin B17 metabolic therapy has exacted a grave injustice upon this treatment, and subsequently upon all who have been persuaded to think likewise.
Let's now look at some testimonies from those who have not been persuaded by the negative propaganda.
Phillip now pays great attention to his diet and believes that what we put into our bodies can have a dramatic effect medicinally.
Here's John Diamond again, this time on some "nutter" with a magical
diet:
"I was waiting my turn for zapping [radiation] one day and mentioned the
ludicrousness of one diet I'd been reading about. The radiographer agreed
and said that when she had started at the hospital there used to be a nutter
who, having refused radiography, would come down and rail against those
sitting in the radiotherapy waiting room, telling them they should abandon
evil radiation and take up his magical diet. 'Criminal,' I said. 'You kicked
him out, of course?' 'Well yes,' she said, 'we kicked him out regularly. The
only thing was, he did survive for years and the cancer did disappear.'
Which only goes to prove--well, nothing very much at all, really, but I
thought I'd pass it on in the name of fair dealing."31
Now if this cancer "nutter" was just an isolated case of recovery through diet, his recovery would not of course constitute proof. But with vitamin B17 metabolic therapy, we are seeing tremendous results time after time. Continuing on in the name of fair dealing.
Says William: "The operation to remove the tumour was cancelled and I am still awaiting the results of the latest scan. I feel fit as a fiddle. I pay attention to my diet and I thank God quite literally for vitamin B17. It is time the NHS [National Health Service] recognised this vitamin as an alternative to the conventional treatments. I consider that any money spent on B17 is money well spent."32
It is interesting to note that there are cultures today who remain almost entirely cancer free. The Abkhasians, the Azerbaijanis, the Hunzas, the Eskimos and the Karakorum all live on foodstuffs rich in nitriloside or vitamin B17. Their food consists variously of buckwheat, peas, broad beans, lucerne, turnips, lettuce, sprouting pulse or grain, apricots with their seeds, and berries of various kinds. Their diet can provide them with as much as 250-3,000 mg of nitriloside a day. The founding father of vitamin B17 research, Ernst T. Krebs, Jr, studied the dietary habits of these tribes. Krebs stated:
"Upon investigating the diet of these people, we found that the seed of the apricot was prized as a delicacy and that every part of the apricot was utilized."33
The average Western diet, with its refined, fibreless foods, offers less than 2 mg of nitriloside a day. It has also been noted that natives from these tribes who move into "civilised" areas and change their diets accordingly are prone to cancers at the regular Western incidence.34
In his book, Preface to Cancer: Nature, Cause and Cure, Dr
Alexander Berglas has this to say about cancer incidence:
"Civilization is, in terms of cancer, a juggernaut that cannot be stopped
It is the nature and essence of industrial civilization to be toxic in every
sense We are faced with the grim prospect that the advance of cancer and of
civilization parallel each other."35
The human body has an amazing capacity to recover, if we look after it
properly and if we supply it with the proper materials for repair. Working
with non-toxic, physio-friendly treatments can only work in our favour. Just
look at the side-effects of vitamin B17 as described by G. Edward Griffin in
World Without Cancer:
"B17 side effects include increased appetite, weight gain, lowered blood
pressure, increased hemoglobin and red blood cell count, elimination or
sharp reduction of pain without narcotics; builds up the body's resistance
to other diseases, is a natural substance found in foods and is compatible
with human biological experience, destroys cancer cells while nourishing
non-cancer cells."36
Compare the above with the side effects from chemotherapy and radiation: the dizziness, skin discolouration, nausea, diarrhoea, loss of hair, loss of appetite, organ failure, internal bleeding, etcetera, etcetera.
How long will it be before we find ourselves looking back on these treatments in the same way as we now look back on the blood-letting and ammonia infusions exacted upon King Charles II? Notwithstanding the often life-saving surgical removal of cancerous tissue, could there possibly be a more inhumane treatment in the 21st century than conventional cancer therapy?
There are literally thousands of people who can attest to the pharmacological, life-saving power of vitamin B17 and its supporting nutritional regime. And the same can also be said of vitamin C.
The all-round benefits of vitamin C to the human physiology have been
known and utilised for centuries. In terms of its benefits in cancer
treatment and prevention, we read the following from Phillip Day:
"Dr Linus Pauling, often known as the 'Father of Vitamin C' and twice
awarded the Nobel Prize, declared that daily intake of up to 10 grams a day
of the vitamin aids anticancer activity within the body.
"Pauling was largely derided for making these declarations but, today, large
doses of vitamin C are used by many practitioners for cancer patients in
nutritional therapy, who believe Pauling was right and that the popular
nutrient is indispensable to the body in its fight to regain health from
cancer."38
Vitamin C can protect against breast cancer. After reviewing 90 studies
on the relationship between vitamin C and cancer, Gladys Block, PhD, at the
University of California at Berkeley, concluded:
"There is overwhelming evidence of the protective effect of vitamin C and
other antioxidants against cancer of the breast."39
And Geoffrey R. Howe, of the National Cancer Institute of Canada,
reviewed 12 controlled case studies of diet and breast cancer and noted that
vitamin C had the most consistent statistically significant relationship to
the reduction of breast cancer risk.40 On the subject of
the importance of mineral and vitamin supplements, a recent New York
Times front-page article quoted Dr Geoffrey P. Oakley, Jr, at the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, as saying:
"We, the physicians, were mistaken not to recommend vitamin supplements
to our patients for so long. We need just to admit that, on this one, we
were wrong."41
Let the reader be assured that the recent scare tactics surrounding vitamin C and its supposed links to cancer are just another one of those smear campaigns orchestrated by the merchants.
Quite simply, any good news on vitamin C represents yet another threat to the pharmaceutical industry's considerable income from conventional cancer treatments. The full story on the vested interests supporting the author of the much-publicised vitamin C/cancer story can be found at the website http://www.whatareweswallowing.freeserve.co.uk/vitc.htm.
About nine months following the diagnosis, she was troubled with lower back pain and visited her doctor. He suggested a further scan based on Hazel's lower back pain, which the doctor believed was possibly the result of her cancer having spread to the base of her spine. Hazel said there was no way she was going for more chemotherapy or scans, which she believes in themselves can trigger carcinogenic activity.
Instead, Hazel supplemented her vitamin C regime with a course of vitamin B17 kernels, and she also maintained a sensible diet and stayed away from her conventional cancer physician. The blood count taken by her GP before Christmas read as normal. She feels very healthy and is in the process of writing a book about her experiences. She feels passionately that people need to know that there are alternative cancer treatments available, and she speaks to groups on this subject.42
Finally, we hear from Dr Nicola Hembry of the Dove Clinic, which
specialises in the non-conventional approach to cancer care and treatment:
"Nutritional treatments such as high-dose vitamin C and B17 [laetrile]
have been known about for years, and there are many success stories from
patients lucky enough to have received and benefited from them. Research
shows that levels of 400 mg/dL vitamin C in the blood can kill cancer cells
by a pro-oxidative mechanism, and there is a great deal of data showing that
B17 is preferentially toxic to cancer cells.
"The trouble is that there is little in the way of well-designed random control trial data for the use of these substances, and therefore mainstream medicine rejects them out of hand without even considering the evidence available or even asking why these trials haven't been carried out. It has to be said that one of the reasons is a lack of financial incentive because these substances cannot be patented.
"Sadly, it is the cancer sufferers who lose out. To not even have the choice of these safer, more natural treatments, even when a cancer is deemed incurable and only palliative chemotherapy or radiotherapy is offered, is in my view totally unacceptable. I have seen many patients experience an improved duration and quality of life with an integrated approach, and some go on to achieve complete remission of their disease, even when dismissed as incurable by their oncologists."43
Treating cancer is not just about getting hold of vitamin B17 as quickly as possible. We need to be educated in a whole range of issues. Phillip Day's book, Cancer: Why We're Still Dying To Know The Truth, has been written in an easily readable and understandable manner, specifically to inform the general public on all of the key issues pertaining to natural treatment for cancer. It makes for necessary and fascinating reading.
For those readers interested in finding out more on the issues raised in this article, just click on the following titles available from Credence Publications at the website http://www.credence.org:
Throughout the writing of this article, I have been acutely aware of three things.
Firstly, I've been aware of my slender mortality and that only by the grace of God have I not had to face a cancer diagnosis of my own. I know that for many, the information contained in "Death by Doctoring" will bring sadness as well as anger. But in its telling, I also believe this story brings great hope.
Secondly, vitamin B17 metabolic therapy and vitamin C form only part of a much wider regime of treatments that have proven successful in the treatment of cancer. These and other sensible treatments are explained in more detail in the above Credence titles.
Thirdly, I am conscious of the fact that there are elements of conventional medical practice that are saving and enhancing lives every day, not least in some methods of early cancer diagnosis and in acute and emergency medicine. May the good continue, and may the bad be open to complete reappraisal.
Finally, I do so wish I'd been given the opportunity to meet John Diamond, because I reckon we'd have got on like a house on fire. And who knows what might have happened as a result?
For a list of practising clinicians or to comment on this report, please telephone Steven Ransom or email steve1@onetel.net.uk. The views of those readers with medical qualifications are especially welcome. Thank you for reading. For re-publication details or further information, telephone +44 (0)1622 832386 or mobile 7947 496488 (UK only).
1. See website
http://www.crc.org.uk/cancer/cs_mortality1.html.
2. "Cancer - The Social Impact", at
http://yakko.bme.virginia.edu/biom304/notes/cancer.htm.
3. Buckman, Dr Rob, Magic or Medicine, Pan
Books, 1994.
4. Diamond, John, 'C': Because Cowards Get Cancer
Too, Vermilion Press, 1999.
5. Mathe, Prof. George, "Scientific Medicine Stymied",
Médicines Nouvelles (Paris), 1989.
6. Last, Walter, The Ecologist, vol. 28, no. 2,
March/April 1998.
7. The Home of Orthomolecular Oncology, at
http://www.canceraction.org.gg/index2.htm.
8. Griffin, Edward G.,
World Without Cancer, American Media Publications, 1996.
9. Day, Phillip, Cancer: Why We're Still Dying To
Know The Truth, Credence Publications, 2000.
10. Day, ibid.
10a. "Chemotherapy - an unproven procedure", at
http://www.thedoctorwithin.com/index20.html
11. Diamond, ibid.
11a. See
http://www.kathykeeton-cancer.com.
12. Le Carré, John, interview in The Nation, New
York, April 9, 2001.
12a. Full story, described as "professional
prostitution", at
http://www.guardian.co.uk/medicine/story/ 0,11381,646078,00.html.
13. Ryan, Robert, BSc, "Cancer Research - A
Super-fraud?", at
http://www.worldnewsstand.net/health/cancer2.htm.
13a. See Dr Tim O'Shea's website,
http://www.thedoctorwithin.com.
14. "Parahealer": the prefix "para-" means "close to",
"alongside", "near", "beyond", "irregular".
14a. Kalweit, Holger, Dream Time and Inner Space,
Shambala Publications, 1998.
15. Diamond, John, "Quacks on the Rack", Observer,
December 3, 2000, and 'C': Because Cowards Get Cancer Too,
Vermilion Press, 1999.
16. £95,000,000 is spent on cough mixtures alone in the
UK. The BMJ, however, has reported a recent trial involving 2,000
participants which found that in most cases the mixtures were no more
effective than a placebo. More details at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/ english/health/newsid_1807000/1807252.stm.
17. Gould, Donald, The Black and White Medicine Show,
Hamilton, 1985.
18. Diamond, John, 'C': Because Cowards Get Cancer
Too, Vermilion Press, 1999.
19. Diamond, John, "Quacks on the Rack", Observer,
December 3, 2000.
20. Griffin, G. Edward,
World Without Cancer: The Story of Vitamin B17, American Media
Publications, 1974, 1996.
21. Day, Phillip (compiler), B17 Metabolic Therapy -
In the Prevention and Control of Cancer, Credence Publications,
2001.
22. Day, Phillip, Cancer: Why We're Still Dying To
Know The Truth, Credence Publications, 2000.
23. ibid.
24. Moss, Ralph, The
Cancer Syndrome, Grove Press, 1980.
25. Griffin, ibid.
26. ibid.
27. Rattigan,
Pat, "The Cancer Business".
28. BBC News, "Cyanide Targets Cancer", Report at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/festival_of_science/newsid_913000/913463.stm.
29. Day, Cancer: Why We're., ibid.
30. Phillip's testimony, on file at Credence
Publications.
31. Diamond, 'C': Because Cowards., ibid.
32. Krebs, Ernst T.,
Nutritional and Therapeutic Implications, John Beard Memorial
Foundation, 1964 (privately published).
33. William's testimony, on file at Credence
Publications.
34. Stefansson, Vilhjalmur, Cancer: Disease of
Civilization? An Anthropological and Historical Study, Hill & Wang,
New York, 1960.
35. Berglas, Dr Alexander, Preface to Cancer:
Nature, Cause and Cure, Pasteur Institute, Paris, 1957.
36. Griffin, ibid.
37. Flora's testimony, on file at Credence
Publications.
38. Day, Cancer: Why We're., ibid.
39. See
http://www.access2wealth. com/health/reportSave%20a%20Woman's%20Life.htm.
40. ibid.
41. ibid.
42. Hazel's testimony, on file at Credence
Publications.
43. From author's interview/correspondence with Dr
Nicola Hembry, on file at Credence Publications.
Steven Ransom is Research Director of UK-based Credence Publications, which investigates business and governmental health fraud and provides unbiased, life-saving health information (see website http://www.credence.org). He is the author of Plague, Pestilence and the Pursuit of Power: The Politics of Global Disease (Credence, 2001), and co-author (with Phillip Day) of World Without AIDS (Credence, 2000). His new book, Great News on Cancer in the 21st Century (from which his "Death by Doctoring" article is extracted), is available at http://www.credence.org/greatnews/greatnews.htm. His article, "Population and Food Control: The Corporate Agenda", was published in NEXUS 9/03. Steven can be emailed at steve1@onetel.net.uk. Visit his own website at http://www.whatareweswallowing.com.