Foods/diets

MMS

Peroxide

+ Oral Use

Rife machines

In 1988, Cecil’s Textbook of Medicine listed the most common cancers that responded well to chemotherapy:

Since then, some of these figures have improved. In fact, seminoma (testicular carcinoma originally, but now cancer of the seminal glands, hence seminoma), the one that Lance Armstrong beat, has an estimated 95% survival rate. Lance Armstrong is the greatest promotion the Pharmaceutical Industry has ever enjoyed.

However, and this is an important HOWEVER, Dr Ulrich Abel, who poured over thousands and thousands of cancer studies, published his shocking report in 1990 stating quite succinctly that chemotherapy has done nothing for 80% of all cancers; that 80% of chemotherapy administered was absolutely worthless.

His report, published in Lancet, August of 1991, described chemotherapy as a “scientific wasteland” and that neither physician nor patient were willing to give it up even though there was no scientific evidence that it worked.

Success of most chemotherapies is appalling…There is no scientific evidence for its ability to extend in any appreciable way the lives of patients suffering from the most common organic cancer… Chemotherapy for malignancies too advanced for surgery, which accounts for 80% of all cancers, is a scientific wasteland [Dr Uhlrich Abel, Stuttgart, 1990]

Dr Abel was immediately attacked by the cancer industry. They could not attack his science, so they attacked his character. This is a common tactic when the accused has science on his/her side.

There are more and more reports by establishment oncologists doubting the value of chemotherapy, even to the point of rejecting it outright. One of these, cancer biostatistician Dr. Ulrich Abel, of Heidelberg, Germany, issued a monograph titled Chemotherapy of Advanced Epithelial Cancer in 1990. (See Healing Journal, No. 1-2, Vol.7 of the Gerson Institute.) Epithelial cancers comprise the most common forms of adenocarcinoma: lung, breast, prostate, colon, etc. After ten years as a statistician in clinical oncology, Abel became increasingly uneasy. "A sober and unprejudiced analysis of the literature," he wrote, "has rarely revealed any therapeutic success by the regimens in question in treating advanced epithelial cancer." While chemotherapy is being used more and more extensively, more than a million people die worldwide of these cancers annually - and a majority have received some form of chemotherapy before dying. Abel further concluded, after polling hundreds of cancer doctors, "The personal view of many oncologists seems to be in striking contrast to communications intended for the public." Abel cited studies that have shown "that many oncologists would not take chemotherapy themselves if they had cancer." (The Cancer Chronicles, December, 1990.) "Even though toxic drugs often do effect a response, a partial or complete shrinkage of the tumor, this reduction does not prolong expected survival," Abel finds. "Sometimes, in fact, the cancer returns more aggressively than before, since the chemo fosters the growth of resistant cell lines." Besides, the chemo has severely damaged the body's own defenses, the immune system and often the kidneys as well as the liver.

In an especially dramatic table, Dr. Abel displays the results of chemotherapy in patients with various types of cancers, as the improvement of survival rates, compared to untreated patients. This table shows:

In colorectal cancer: no evidence survival is improved.
Gastric cancer: no clear evidence.
Pancreatic cancer: Study completely negative. Longer survival in control (untreated) group.[emphasis mine:rsc]
Bladder: no clinical trial done.
Breast cancer: No direct evidence that chemotherapy prolongs survival; its use is "ethically questionable." (That is particularly newsworthy, since all breast cancer patients, before or after surgery, are given chemotherapy drugs.)
Ovarian cancer: no direct evidence.
Cervix and uterus: No improved survival.
Head and neck: no survival benefit but occasional shrinkage of tumors.
More recently, the Nov. 17, 1994 Wall Street Journal, in a front page article on political pressure being exerted for insurance companies to pay for bone marrow transplants in advanced breast cancer, experts give a totally negative report on this approach. The procedure, called ABMT (Autologous Bone Marrow Transplant) involves temporarily removing some of the patient's bone marrow, applying a potentially lethal dose of chemotherapy, then returning the marrow to the patient's body. The cost of this procedure is in excess of $100,000.00 .

The University of Colorado's Dr. Jones, continues the Journal, claims that, with conventional chemotherapy, not more than 2% of patients with spreading breast cancer get a positive response. A non-profit independent technology assessment agency, the Emergency Care Research Institute (ECRI), says that for the average woman with the most advanced form of breast cancer, the high dose ABMT procedure is not only worthless, but also likely to shorten her life. This report by the ECRI is based on an analysis of 40 studies of ABMT and similar procedures involving a total of 1,017 patients, and 61 studies covering 4,852 patients who had conventional chemotherapy Dr. Nelson Erlick, the project's lead analyst, concluded that "many patients are led to believe that this (ABMT) is a successful therapy. We found no evidence whatsoever that it provides any benefit."

Since the Gerson Therapy is often described by orthodox oncologists as 'quackery', we'd like our readers to consider this: If quackery describes an expensive treatment that the technician knows ahead of time to be ineffective (or even harmful), what is ABMT (bone marrow transplant)? Yet Health Plan providers are being ordered to pay for it by the Office of Personnel Management, a federal agency.

Taken from: http://gerson.org/chemo101.html:

What doctors say about Chemo Therapy ?

To date, not a single non-toxic cancer drug has been approved by the FDA.
[UPDATE: Because the FDA and Texas Board of Medical Examiners were unable to shut down Dr Burzynski's office and end his research, the FDA was cornered, and consented to allowed Dr Burzynski to conduct Phase II Trials on his therapy, antineoplastons. A drug, Buphenyl, that Dr Burzynski developed that is non toxic and causes the liver to create antineoplastons, has been approved and is now available through prescription.]

As Frank Wiewel tells people, "Ask your oncologist for a guarantee. See what he says."

Considering the six minutes HMOs schedule you to meet with your physician along with the studies showing that your physician spends 1.3 minutes answering your questions, pondering your options will have to take place outside your doctor’s office.

This is one reason why we publish articles like these. You need a second opinion.