Every time we put a drug in our body, two things happen:
- what the drug initially does to the body
- How the body adapts to the drug
Any example will do.
First, the drug kills all bacteria in the body. Then the body responds by growing them back, often with the bad bacteria out of balance, which come back in more powerful, mutated forms.
First, muscles are built because testosterone has been mimicked. Then the body responds by cutting production of natural testosterone, which eventually feminizes the athlete by shrinking the gonads… Obviously these are simplifications, but you get the idea.
“Drugs tend to worsen whatever they’re supposed to cure, which sets up a vicious circle.”
Dr. Dean Black in Health at the Crossroads p. 20
The Bi-Pasic Effect is well-explained by Dean Black and many other researchers who were trying to figure out why tumours seemed to come back with such a vengeance after chemotherapy. Some original work was done by American Cancer Society researcher Robert Schimke in 1985 who discovered that the way cancer cells resist chemotherapy is to replicate even harder and faster.
Chemo drugs are lethal: So, the cancer cells are stimulated to try and survive any way they can, which means faster growth. In the presence of any toxin, cells will resist it to stay alive. The more they resist, the stronger they get.
Black sees cancer itself is just an adaptation: A normal response to an abnormal poison. Chemotherapy simply provokes adaptation. (Black, p. 45) This is why we all know people who have had chemotherapy and experienced temporary remission. But when the tumour came back, it did so with a vengeance, and the patient was quickly overwhelmed
Schimke talks about the possible effects chemotherapy might have on a tumour that otherwise may have been self-limiting:
“Might such treatments convert relatively benign tumours into more lethal forms?”.
Robert Schimke p. 1915
Think about this the next time you hear an oncologist talk about “mopping up” with powerful chemo drugs just to be sure we “got it all”. Or prescribing powerful chemotherapy for a “pre-cancerous” or even a benign situation.
“To understand the bi-phasic effect, one begins to realize that drugs are fighting the body. The whole military motif – medicine imposes its will upon the body, even though we have vastly incomplete information to be doing something that arrogant”.
Tim O’Shea in TO THE CANCER PATIENT
In 1986, McGill Cancer Centre scientists sent a questionnaire to 118 doctors who treated non-small-cell lung cancer.
More than three quarters of them recruited patients and carried out trials of toxic drugs for lung cancer. They were asked to imagine that they themselves had cancer, and were asked which of six current trials they themselves would choose.
Of the 79 respondents, 64 said they would not consent to be in a trial containing Cisplatin, a common chemotherapy drug. Fifty-eight found all the trials unacceptable.
The ineffectiveness of chemotherapy and its unacceptable degree of toxicity!
Famed German biostatistician Ulrich Abel, PhD, also found in a similar 1989 study that “the personal views of many oncologists seem to be in striking contrast to communications intended for the public “Chemotherapy Report,”
Because of the problem of nausea and vomiting caused by cancer itself as well as many chemotherapy agents and/or radiation therapy, many cancer patients develop anorexia – the loss of appetite or desire to eat.
This situation is not good at all because it can lead to a condition known as cancer “cachexia” – a wasting syndrome characterized by weakness and a noticeable continuous loss of weight, fat, and muscle. It is estimated that roughly 40% of cancer patients actually die of malnutrition rather than their disease itself.
“If your friend touches chemotherapy, he’s a goner, so stated Chemotherapy Expert Ernst Wynder in a warning to a friend of professor Gearin-Tosh who healed himself of one of the most lethal cancers known using natural means..
Chemotherapy expert Ernst Wynder, former professor at Sloan-Kettering Hospital and recipient of a medal from the American Cancer Association,
“One of the most important things I have ever heard was said to me by an oncological nurse. She was a member of an adult college class I was taking in 1989. When she found out I’d been diagnosed with cancer [and] was entering into treatment for lymphoma, she took it upon herself to say to me, unbidden and unasked, “Elliot, YOU have GOT to TAKE CONTROL of YOUR OWN treatment, or THE DOCTORS WILL TURN YOU INTO A PIECE OF MEAT.” Truer words were never spoken! Because that nurse had thought it important enough to say that to me without my ever asking, I took what she said very much to heart, and I know her words saved me a great deal of grief”.
E. Yuden friend who cured himself of lymphoma, considered incurable by mainstream medicine
“Why so much use of chemotherapy if it does so little good? Well for one thing, drug companies provide huge economic incentives. In 1990, $3.53 billion was spent on chemotherapy. By 1994 that figure had more than doubled to $7.51 billion. This relentless increase in chemotherapy use was accompanied by a relentless increase in cancer deaths”.
On cancer diagnosing
“Most cancers are not found until autopsy. That’s because they never caused any symptoms. For example 30 – 40 times as many cases of thyroid, pancreatic, and prostate cancer are found in autopsy than ever presented to the doctor.”
According to a study cited in top British medical journal Lancet 13 Feb 93, early screening often leads to unnecessary treatment: 33% of autopsies show prostate cancer but only 1% die from it.
After age 75, half of males may have prostate cancer, but only 2% die from it. This means simply that the immune system can hold many problems in check, as long as it is not compromised by powerful procedures. Guess which system is the most important to you at this time, more than it’s ever been before in your whole life.
Right – the immune system. Guess which system suffers most from chemotherapy and radiation. Right again. So the one time in your life you most need it, your immune system will be weakened by those therapies.
If you’re one of the few cancer patients whose refused standard treatment from the get-go – good, but your immune system still needs all the help you can give it.
A 1992 study in Journal of the American Medical Association of 223 patients concluded that no treatment at all for prostate cancer actually was better than any standard chemotherapy, radiation or surgical procedure. (Johansson)
Tim O’Shea in TO THE CANCER PATIENT
Compare Cancer “Over-diagnosing”and “Over-Treatment”: Do be aware!
Biopsy of breast/prostate:
“I was contacted by a lady who successfully dealt with her breast cancer from 1994 to present. She refused all conventional medical procedures. Last year her conventional oncologist convinced her that she was a fool not to get a needle biopsy. This lady now has new tumours growing at each puncture site. Of course her oncologist now has detailed information to help decide which chemo’s to use for this now rapidly metastasizing cancer. I repeatedly make this same observation with prostate cancer. I rarely see distant metastasis until after a biopsy — and then it rapidly goes everywhere including the bones.”
Dr. Vincent Gammill, Centre for the Study of Natural Oncology (CSNO). Solana Beach, California (non-profit).
In 2002, a mammogram showed a tiny anomaly in my left breast. Then the nightmare began, starting with the process of diagnosis…
I think we can take for granted that there cannot be true honesty from providers of conventional cancer treatment. After all, how many would accept these treatments if they had all the facts?
L. P. who after experiencing the shock, trauma & disfigurement resulting from “quackery at its cruelest” considers conventional cancer treatment an “evil industry”
Unexpected shocks can lead to cancer – brain metastasis wrongly diagnosed… [Dr] Hamer named the “foci” formed in the brain in response to shocks HHs (“Hamersche Herde”…). When the [unexpected shock] hits the organism, immediate cell alteration occurs in the place in the brain which handles the content of the shock, and this content is always subjective. For instance, if a woman gets unexpectedly shaken by finding out that her partner has been unfaithful, the discovery about her marital misfortune is just the objective event. The clue to understand how this will affect her physically is to know her personal experience, her subjective interpretation of the conflict. How does she experience this shock? There are several possibilities. If she experiences it as a threat to her “nest”, the HH will occur in the lateral part of the cerebellum, and from there, modification signals are sent down to her breast. But she could as well experience it totally differently, such as a conflict of sexual frustration, and if so, the impact at the brain level will be the left peri-insular part of the brain, followed by modification of her cervix. There are yet other possibilities. In other words, the location of the HH in the brain may vary from person to person and from time to time, even if the event objectively seems to be the same. The soul-body’s interpretation all depends on the organism’s experience up until the event.
This brain alteration can be photographed via computer-tomography (CT) and a fresh one looks like a dot with concentric rings surrounding it (like a target, or a picture of a water surface into which a pebble has been dropped), while one more progressed lacks rings, is larger and looks congested. … Radiologists have mistaken this phenomenon for a defect in the equipment or a “brain metastasis”, the latter being very unfortunate because it has meant that lots of people have been forced to totally unnecessarily undergo dangerous brain operations. Certifications from CT manufacturers and careful studies of the brain cell formations finally established that the HHs fit neither interpretation, and that instead Hamer’s explanation hit the nail on the head.
A. Stahel in My Interpretation of New Medicine: A Revolutionary Biological Paradigm
It’s not the results of the “bone scans” or “CTs” which are of crucial importance … but whether the cancer can be gotten under control or not. While many of the test methods used by us physicians are certainly scientific, they say nothing about the patient’s state of health.*
Dr. Budwig’s approach is not a method of healing cancer but a technique which strengthens the body’s own immune defence against cancerous cells.
Dr Armin Grunewald, MD, nephew of Dr. Budwig, who incorporates parts of her approach in his office
* Compare “Modern Medicine Is Not A Science”.
After one recent survey two pathologists reported that after carrying out 400 post-mortem examinations they had found that in more than half the patients the wrong diagnosis had been made. This presumably also means that in more than half the patients the wrong treatment had been given. And since so many modern treatments are undeniably powerful it also presumably means that a large proportion of those patients died because of their treatment. The two pathologists reported that potentially treatable disease was missed in one in seven patients. They found that 65 out of 134 cases of pneumonia had gone unrecognised while out of 51 patients who had suffered heart attacks doctors had failed to diagnose the problem in 18 cases.
Dr. Vernon Coleman, M.D., D. Sc., author of 114 books with translations into 23 languages selling in over 50 countries
From Dr. Vernon Coleman’s article “Modern Medicine Is Not a Scienceâ‚¬
Compare Alternative Diagnostic/Screening Methods For Detection & Follow-Up of Cancer & Cancerous Tumours.
On avoidable suffering
Pam Young had breast cancer, innocently trusted her doctor’s recommendations (mastectomy, followed by TRAMflap‚ “reconstructive”‚ surgery) which led to lymphedema (swelling of arm) and a horrible pain-ridden life as a wheelchair-bound cripple.
She, like so many (including a well-known person 2000 years ago), suffered unspeakably and died, perhaps so that others – by learning from her example – wouldn’t have to undergo the same: “It is my desire to save other women from the same fate. There are alternatives to the cut, burn and poison’ modalities used by the Allopathic doctors. If I can help save one woman, I will be thankful.”
Please listen to her.
Up until the pain became too great, Pam worked very hard to help other women who were ill and/or disabled from TRAM flap surgeries, breast implant illnesses, and breast cancer.
She created a book that resides in her home town library of Findlay, Ohio, which tells the truth about the dangers and risks associated with reconstructive breast surgery and cancer treatment.
She worked very hard to enact legislation in her home state so that women who are confronted with TRAM flap surgery would be given Informed Consent about this surgery prior to being operated.
Together with her friend Lany, she created the following informative groups:
BAAR, Breast Augmentation and Reconstruction, which is a public newsgroup that focuses on the risks of TRAM flap surgery, breast implants, and related issues.
Another public newsgroup to further provide research into the dangers of this particular surgery. She contributed a great deal of research to the newsgroup, SBI Prayer Forum, her work and testimony remains in the archives of these groups. Her last effort to help other women was the creation of the groups.
…exposing the dangers of radiation from mammograms and [offering] thermograms as a safer alternative. It discusses unnecessary mastectomies and lymphedema caused by lymph node dissection. Complications of breast implants and tissue flap reconstructions are exposed. … Reviews the carcinogenic effects of chemo, radiation and Tamoxifen. Non-toxic, non-invasive preventative, natural therapies for breast cancer [are discussed].
Second part of the above written by Pam’s friend Lany
It was my misfortune to find out about conventional treatment the hard way, for which I am paying. … It is difficult for me to talk about this horrible experience because of the trauma associated with it. … I am working with a trauma counsellor in the hopes that the memories will lose some of their power to overwhelm.
L. P. who after experiencing the shock, trauma & disfigurement resulting from “quackery at its cruelest, considers conventional cancer treatment an “evil industry”.
If I had known then what I know now, I would never, never, NEVER let anyone touch me with a needle or a knife! Cheryl Franks after her experience with TRAM flap mastectomy & biopsies following a CDIS diagnosis.
Alternatives to Pain Medication:
Natural Approaches to Relieving Cancer Pain is now here.
On cancer business
Chemotherapy is an incredibly lucrative business for doctors, hospitals, and a pharmaceutical company. The medical establishment wants everyone to follow the same exact protocol. They don’t want to see the chemotherapy industry go under, and that’s the number one obstacle to any progress in oncology.
Dr Warner, M.D.
Chemotherapy: An Unproven Procedure
In evaluating a therapeutic regimen, the only thing that really matters is death rate – will a treatment significantly extend a patient’s life. I’m not talking about life as a vegetable, but the natural healthy independent lifespan of a human being.
Media stories and most articles in medical journals go to great lengths to hide the underlying numbers of people dying from cancer, by talking about other issues. In Questioning Chemotherapy, Dr. Ralph Moss talks about several of the ways they do it:
Response rate is a favourite. If a dying patient’s condition changes even for a week or a month, especially if the tumour shrinks temporarily, the patient is listed as having “responded to” chemotherapy. No joke! The fact that the tumour comes back stronger soon after chemo is stopped is not figured into the equation. The fact that the patient has to endure horrific side effects in order to temporarily shrink the tumour is not considered. That fact that the patient soon dies is not figured into the equation. The idea is to sell, sell, and sell. Sell chemotherapy.
Also in the media, we find the loud successes chemotherapy has had on certain rare types of cancer, like childhood leukaemia, and Hodgkin’s lymphoma. But for the vast majority of cancer cases, chemo is a bust. Worse yet, a toxic one.
Even with Hodgkin’s, one of chemo’s much-trumpeted triumphs, the cure is frequently a success, but the patient dies. He just doesn’t die of Hodgkin’s disease, that’s all. In the 1994 Journal of the National Cancer Institute, they published a 47-year study of more than 10,000 patients with Hodgkin’s lymphoma, who were treated with chemotherapy. Even though there was success with the Hodgkin’s itself, these patients encountered an incidence of leukaemia that was six times the normal rate. This is a very common type of reported success within the cancer industry – again, the life of the patient is not taken into account.In evaluating any treatment, there must be a benefits/risks analysis. Due to gigantic economic pressures, such evaluation has been systematically put aside in the U.S. chemotherapy industry.
Tim O’Shea in TO THE CANCER PATIENT
It’s difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it. – Upton Sinclair
FDA drug approval: eye opening behind-the-scenes report on FDA advisers industry ties
More than half of the experts hired to advise the government on the safety and effectiveness of medicine have financial relationships with the pharmaceutical companies that will be helped or hurt by their decisions, a USA TODAY study found…The experts are supposed to be independent, but … 54% of the time, they have a direct financial interest in the drug or topic they are asked to evaluate…Federal law generally prohibits the FDA from using experts with financial conflicts of interest, but the FDA has waived the restriction more than 800 times since 1998…The expert panel’s “consumer representative,” whose assignment is to defend consumers’ interests, had the most extensive financial relationship with Johnson & Johnson.
In recent years, the FDA has followed every advisory committee recommendation to approve or reject a medicine – except once… The federal agency is forbidden from using experts with financial conflicts unless a waiver is granted, usually on the grounds that the experts’ value outweighs the seriousness of the conflict. The FDA grants these waivers routinely…Many financial conflicts are considered too small to require disclosure or a waiver and were not counted in USA TODAY’s study. For example, a committee member can be paid up to $50,000 a year by a drug company without any financial conflict being disclosed if the work was on a topic other than what the committee is evaluating…Financial conflicts are so common that eight of 10 members who evaluated the drug Aggrastat, made by Merck, had conflicts of interest…
Dennis Cauchon in USA TODAY September 25, 2000, found at mercola.com/2000/oct/1/fda_drug_approvals.htm
I have the answer to cancer, but American doctors won’t listen. They come here and observe my methods and are impressed. Then they want to make a special deal so they can take it home and make a lot of money. I won’t do it, so I’m blackballed in every country.
Dr. Johanna Budwig
The field of U.S. cancer care is organized around a medical monopoly that ensures a continuous flow of money to the pharmaceutical companies, medical technology firms, research institutes, and government agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and quasi-public organizations such as the American Cancer Society (ACS).
Ralph Moss, Ph.D., quoted by John Diamond, M.D., & Lee Cowden, M.D. in Alternative Medicine: the Definitive Guide to Cancer
[Conventional cancer treatment is] big money. You have to understand that cancer is 1/9th of the overall health budget in the United States. The last figures I have seen from the American Cancer Society of money spent on cancer indirectly or directly at 107 Billion dollars. … Cancer: we are talking about well over a million [new] cases a year, not counting skin cancer which probably equals that.
… 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 tens of thousands, sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars. A bone marrow transplantation which is basically another way of giving chemotherapy or radiation can run to about 150,000 dollars per person, and is almost never effective. It kills about 25%. [Why carry on doing it?] Because of the money, which is tremendous! If you look at the board of directors of MSK [Memorial Sloane Kettering] you will find that the drug industry has a dominant position on that board.
One company in particular, Bristol Myers, which produces between 40-50% of all the chemotherapy in the world, and they have top positions at MSK hospital. [Doesn’t that constitute a serious conflict of interest?] They are selling their own drugs to that particular hospital but they have written into the by-laws of the centre that it does not constitute a conflict of interest to sell their company drugs to the centre. They get around it by not taking a salary. They are not paid, they are volunteers.
Look what happens. You have a man like Benno Schmidt, who was first head of the president’s cancer panel under Nixon, then becomes head of MSK. He then goes on using the knowledge he gained at MSK to set up his own drug company to make tens of millions of dollars. [Another revolving door.] You bet, and a big one.
We have had 50 years of American Cancer Society (ACS) brainwashing on the question of cancer, so most people out there believe we are making progress in the war on cancer. We are not, we are losing the war.
Dr. Ralph Moss on Chemotherapy, Laetrile, Coley’s Toxins, Burzynski, & Cancer Politics, Laura Lee radio show, 1994
I suggest that all those who find it necessary to add other protocols or to add supplements to it have not even given the Budwig Protocol half a chance. They just don’t look beyond the flaxoil/cottage cheese part. There is much more to it than that. It is a scientifically well thought out, all natural approach to health, that has a tremendous rate of success and track record… and it costs next to nothing. I think that if it were very expensive and much money could be made on it, it would be much more popular because it would be pushed by business. But as it stands, it doesn’t lend itself to it. So, you have to take it at practically no cost or go for some other high priced methods.
Wilhelm H on Dr. Johanna Budwig’s diet & protocol
For more information on money & cancer, see History of alternative cancer treatment and Alternative cancer treatment caveat: on honesty & deception, money & manipulation, commercialism, theft of copyright, ego & “all that glitters is not gold”.