How chemotherapy does not cure cancer or prolong life “Questioning Chemotherapy,” a riveting book written by Dr. Ralph Moss, details chemotherapy’s ineffectiveness and inability to treat 96 to 98% of all cancers. His book delves into the failures (and few achievements) of chemotherapy for more than 50 different forms of cancer.
Dr. Moss spent nearly 20 years at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. Dr. Moss revealed the truth to the public in a well-documented 48-page report at a press conference in November 1977, claiming that top Sloan-Kettering personnel had lied about the results of a study. study performed at the center in relation to “laetrile” He was fired the next day.
Dr. Moss’s other well-documented book, “The Cancer Industry,” reveals massive financial and political corruption in the “cancer establishment.” He observes that the motivating forces behind cancer research and treatment are frequently power and the generation of endless funds, rather than the cure of cancer patients.
Chemotherapy is not a panacea.
Dr. Moss’ book demonstrates that chemotherapy is useless for the majority of cancers, including breast, colon, prostate, and lung cancer. Chemotherapy has been claimed to help some 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 96% to 98% of all other cancers where treatment does not remove the malignancy. In reality, studies demonstrate that chemotherapy has the opposite effect: because it impairs the immune system’s ability to function appropriately, it eventually helps to hasten the cancer patient’s death, which is typically painful.
What exactly does “effective” mean? It is a matter of definition if a cancer treatment is “effective.” The FDA defines a “effective” chemotherapeutic medication as one that reduces tumor size by 50% or more for at least 28 days. Only 28 days left! In the great majority of cases, there is no association between reducing tumors for 28 days and cancer cure or life extension.
When a cancer patient hears his or her doctor remark that chemotherapy is “effective,” he or she assumes that the doctor implies that treatment will cure the cancer. But, in reality, chemotherapy only temporarily shrinks the tumor (usually for a short period of time), while poisoning immune system cells – so that later on (after only a few months to a year), the tumor begins to grow back more viciously and larger than ever, leading to very low survival rates.
Is it cruel to tell a cancer patient that chemotherapy is “effective” when research shows that the tumor shrinkage will be only temporary and that, statistically speaking, the patient will die much sooner than if the cancer was allowed to run its course without intervention? Is telling a cancer patient that chemotherapy is “effective” simply “excellent marketing” for the costly but useless treatment drugs?
Chemotherapy typically does not cure cancer or lengthen life, according to research conducted worldwide. Even though doctors frequently assert that chemotherapy improves the quality of life in an effort to persuade cancer patients to begin
chemotherapy. Dr. Moss examined thousands of research articles and discovered that not a single credible study supports the assertion that chemotherapy enhances quality of life, not even momentarily.
It appears that a patient’s definition of a “excellent quality of life” and what physicians define as such are two distinct things. Chemotherapy’s well-known “side effects” (aren’t they actually “main” effects?) include nausea, hair loss, excessive exhaustion, and the destruction of your immune system, which prevents it from responding normally to even minor illnesses. Does this make your life better in any way? Numerous other alleged “side effects” of chemotherapy include life-threatening mouth sores and the complete sloughing off of the gut lining in rare cases.
One terrible long-term side effect of chemotherapy is that many patients who have undergone it no longer respond well to nutritional treatments for cancer, which are sometimes the final resort. People who use chemotherapy may have tragically lost their best opportunity of beating cancer: the use of nutritionally based therapies to boost their immune systems. Chemotherapy does not cure 96% to 98% of all cancers.
Chemotherapists Say “No Thanks” To Chemotherapy
Most chemotherapists have stated in various studies that they would not undergo chemotherapy themselves or advise their families to do so. Some of the most hazardous compounds ever intentionally ingested by humans are chemotherapy medications. They have been created to be poisons and are known to be poisons. Chemotherapy’s origins can be traced back to experiments with the dreadful chemical weapons of World War I known as “mustard gas,” which promoted the notion of “poisoning” the cancer cells. But without also damaging the rest of the immune system, this is simply not conceivable.
Numerous influential experts in the field of cancer treatment support Dr. Moss’ assertion that chemotherapy is ineffective as a cancer treatment. James Watson, the DNA pioneer and Nobel Laureate, was quoted in the New York Times as saying that the American public had been “sold a nasty bill of goods about cancer” as early as 1975.
Scientific American published Dr. John Cairns’ opinion in 1985, stating “that basically the war on cancer was a failure and that chemotherapy was not getting very far with the vast majority of cancers.” Cairns is a professor of microbiology at Harvard. Chemotherapy was criticized by Dr. John Bailer, the head of epidemiology at McGill University in Montreal and a former editor of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Bailer and Dr. Elaine Smith, a University of Iowa colleague, published an article in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1986. According to Bailer and Smith, the most important clinical outcome metric—death — hasn’t changed all that much over the course of about 35 years despite ongoing, intense efforts to improve cancer treatment. The goals of the cancer control campaign have not been met thus far.
The renowned British medical journal Lancet published an article in 1991 by Dr. Albert Braverman, professor of hematology and oncology at the State University of New York, Brooklyn, titled “Medical Oncology in the 1990s.” In it, he stated that “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 currently being administered.” According to Dr. Braverman, no solid tumor that was considered incurable in 1976 is now treatable with conventional medical procedures, such as chemotherapy. Dr. Moss concurs with this.
How those people passed away is lost in the cold statistic of 500,000 cancer deaths annually. A medical doctor with a keen interest in nutrition, Dr. Julian Whitaker, expresses his opinions on traditional cancer treatment, saying that it is “so toxic and dehumanizing that I fear it far more than I fear death from cancer.” We are aware that conventional treatment is ineffective because, in that case, cancer would be no more feared than pneumonia. More choice in cancer therapy is practically screamed for by the complete uncertainty surrounding the results of conventional treatment. However, the majority of so-called alternative therapies, regardless of their potential or demonstrated value, are illegal, which compels patients to accept the failures that we know don’t work out of desperation.
The Greatest Breakthrough in Chemotherapy: Suppressed?
Dr. Ulrich Abel, a biostatistician at the University of Heidelberg, conducted a thorough research study in 1990 that Dr. Moss names as the greatest advancement in chemotherapy history. Whether chemotherapy effectively increased survival in advanced epithelial cancer was the focus of Dr. Abel’s criticism. He came to the conclusion that chemotherapy wasn’t working. He also came to the conclusion that chemotherapy was generally ineffective for treating most cancers based on a wealth of factual data. His work has received “zero” evaluations, according to a recent search for reviews in American medical journals. Is Dr. Abel’s groundbreaking research on chemotherapy being kept from having a significant impact on American medicine? What is the cause of his research’s “black-out”?
Why is chemotherapy still being promoted by the majority of oncologists in light of the extensive documentation in Dr. Moss’ book and the statistical support created by the experts on chemotherapy? There is “a tremendous conflict going on in the minds of honest, sensitive, caring oncologists,” according to Dr. Moss. They are in a very challenging situation because they have spent years in training to learn how to administer these lethal, poisonous substances. The reason they entered the field of oncology was to be able to assist cancer patients, but they soon discovered that the treatments available to them did not work, and even worse, that chemotherapy was actually shortening the patient’s quality and quantity of life. They witness what happens to medical professionals who “step out of line” and use non-conventional, safe methods to treat cancer. Many people attempt to leave medicine and enter other professions, but few jobs are as lucrative as a career in medicine.
Some well-intentioned oncologists have simply taken a small number of patients aside (those they believe won’t expose them) and told them, “I didn’t tell you this and I will deny it if you tell anyone I said this, but don’t do chemo.” This is a reaction to years of witnessing so many patients go rapidly “down hill” after starting chemotherapy. Your daughter will not be able to use it. Try different approaches at home. This is precisely what happened to one of our friends who brought their 16-year-old daughter to a California cancer facility with cancer. They secretly stopped their daughter’s chemotherapy program after their doctor revealed the truth, and they then tried nutritional treatments. Today, she is in excellent health and cancer-free.
But woe betide the oncologist “caught” advising patients against “establishment” cancer protocols or merely deviating from those protocols. Some of the effects include armed raids, license loss, professional smearing, and ostracism. At a recent National Institute of Health meeting, Dr. Lundberg, editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association is quoted as saying of chemotherapy: “[It’s] a marvelous opportunity for rampant deceit. Because there is so much money to be made, ethical principles occasionally get trampled in a rush to attack doctors and prescribers. That was never mentioned on the evening news.
The cost of treating cancer is astonishing. Each year, the cost of treating cancer is close to $100 billion ($100,000,000). Nearly $8.5 billion of that is spent on chemotherapy. From a different perspective, among the almost 40 chemotherapeutic medications that have been “FDA-approved,” the Bristol Myers business has patents on 12 of them. Members of the Bristol Myers board of directors include the president, immediate past president, chairman of the board, and a few of the directors.
The mortality rate from cancer is rising. The basis of conventional treatment is flawed: the body must get rid of cancer using aggressive and harmful procedures like surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation therapy. In actuality, rather than a poisonous “death of the disease,” the body must ultimately repair itself. Because of this, the body’s immune system must be strengthened rather than suppressed for the best results in cancer treatment.
Don’t Take A Passive Role
Make sure you educate yourself if you’re in a life or death situation. It is confusing to hear news reports about a famous person who has begun receiving harsh chemotherapy and is, in the words of the TV pundit, “courageously battling for his life.” What exactly does that mean? The celebrity is no more “courageous” than a lab mouse because they both simply accepted normal cancer care. Of course, it is the celebrity’s decision, but it is not a courageous one.
It’s risky to accept standard cancer treatment passively. Remember Jackie Kennedy, who fought non-lymphoma Hodgkin’s “courageously” before losing the battle, or did she? Cancer specialists all around the world were shocked by her early death, which was attributed to cancer, but it raised doubts about the true cause of her passing. She had received very high-dose chemotherapy according to an untested procedure. Her death may have easily been brought on by these medicines alone, and this wouldn’t be rare. Chemotherapy-related deaths that were iatrogenic (caused by a doctor) occur often.
Actively Fight For Your Life
A cancer patient who rejects treatments that have been shown to be ineffective has taken the first step on a long road. To create their own ideal fighting strategy to defeat cancer, the person must start educating themselves by reading a variety of educational materials. This is brave behavior. What do they stand to gain?
It is unrealistic to anticipate conventional cancer specialists to provide the most effective cures for the majority of cancers. There is just too much proof to the contrary, according to indisputable global study. Since conventional cancer treatment is harmful and ineffective, it seems that individuals who look into alternate nontoxic, alternative methods will have the highest survival rates.
John Diamond, Lee Cowden, Burton Goldberg, and editors. Alternativemedicine.com Books, The Definitive Guide to Cancer, 1997.
Moss, Ralph, Questioning Chemotherapy, Equinox Press, 1995.
Moss, Ralph, The Cancer Industry, Equinox Press, 1996.