For well over half a century we have
been promised by mainstream medicine that a cure or major breakthrough for
cancer was just around the corner. Every year we see promising new drugs and
therapies announced. Yet every year we also see more people contract cancer and
more people die of cancer.
Instead of focusing on natural and safe methods of
prevention and treatment, we continue to treat by using surgery, chemotherapy
and radiation to cut out, poison out and burn out the symptoms of cancer while
leaving the underlying causes untreated - and we continue to largely ignore the
role that proper diet, nutrition and lifestyle plays in preventing and helping
cure cancer.
Although surgery does have some success against a limited
number of cancers, chemo and radiation achieve at best a 3% increase in length
of survival and true cures from cancer (meaning that the patient becomes
completely cancer free and the cancer never returns). The fact is that for
those who are diagnosed with cancer, after the third year the survival rate for
those who had no treatment at all increases steadily and for those who had
mainstream treatment it decreases steadily.
Sources: Dr. Ralph Moss and Webster Kehr, the "Cancer
Tutor"
Despite the dismal record, those in the $300 Billion a
year cancer industry appear determined to maintain a stranglehold on treatment.
One way they do so is to suppress natural alternatives. Another is to misreport
their success rates by altering statistics to make their success appear to be
much better than it actually is.
Here are six ways that mainstream medicine misreports
their statistics:
1. By re-defining "cure" as "alive five
years after diagnosis: instead of using the word's real meaning, which is
"cancer-free". Thus a patient could still have cancer the entire five
years and die one day after the 5th anniversary date of diagnosis and still be
recorded as a cure.
2. By simply omitting certain groups of people, such as
African Americans, or by omitting certain types of cancer, such as all lung
cancers patients, from their statistical calculations.
3. By including types of cancer that are not
life-threatening and are easily curable, such as skin cancers and DCIS.
The statistics most commonly reported include many such
easily curable cancers, such as localized cancers of the cervix, non-spreading
cancers and melanomas, as well as "cancers" that many feel are not
true cancers at all, merely pre-cancers. For example, DCIS is a pre-cancerous
condition that is 99% curable and makes up 30% of all breast cancers. Deduct
that 30% from the breast cancer cure rates and survival statistics and and the
figures are much less impressive.
4. By allowing earlier detection to erroneously imply
longer survival.
5. By deleting patients from cancer treatment studies who
die too soon, even if that is on the 89th day of a 90 day chemotherapy
protocol.
6. By using a questionable adjustment called
"relative survival rate" where they get to deduct a certain number of
cancer victims who statistics say would have died during the five years of
other causes such as heart attacks, car wrecks, etc.
Source: Tanya Harter Pierce "Outsmart Your
Cancer"
These outrageous "fudges", as Ms. Harter too
kindly calls them, have all been incorporated into cancer cure statistics to
hide the fact that the war on cancer has been hopelessly lost and wrongly
waged. In the opinion of many who are far more knowledgeable and qualified than
I am, the so-called War on Cancer is little more than a hoax.
"Everyone should know that most cancer research is
largely a fraud and that the major cancer research organisations are derelict
in their duties to the people who support them."
- Linus Pauling PhD
(Two-time Nobel Prize winner).
"The National Anti-Cancer Program is a bunch of
sh*t."
- James Watson, Nobel Laureate for Medicine in 1962 ,
joint discoverer of the double helix of DNA, and for two years a member of the
US Joint Advisory Committee on Cancer
When it comes to mainstream successes, of the three major
mainstream treatment methods, surgery is the only one with respectable success
rates and even then it is only successful the vast majority of the time in
those who have operable types of cancer that has not yet metastisized at the
time of diagnosis - and most cancers are not detected prior to metastisizing.
When it comes to Chemo, in the words of Dr. Ralph Moss:
"Chemo has some success in a few kinds of cancer, but
in the conventional cancers which chemotherapy sometimes "works" such
as small-cell lung cancers, the actual survival benefit is reckoned in weeks or
months, not in years. And during this time, the patient is likely to experience
major, even life threatening, side effects from the treatment, so the overall
advantage to the patient is moot."
Radiation results are even more dismal. In some studies,
patients who opted for radiation have had lower survival rates than those who
did not have radiation.
Sources: Tanya Harter Pierce, Dr. Rath Foundation
Another common deception of mainstream medicine is to
quote "response rates", which is defined as having a 50% tumor
shrinkage for a period of twelve months. It has nothing to do with cure rates
or long term survival, but it is the statistic that is often quoted to patient
by their oncologists.
Yet another deception is the use of the term
"remission" to imply cure, when it is nothing of the sort. As
"the Cancer Tutor" Webster Kehr writes in "The War Between
Orthodox Medicine and Alternative Medicine"
First of all, the National Cancer Institute defines
"remission" as:
"A decrease in or disappearance of signs and symptoms
of cancer. In partial remission, some, but not all, signs and symptoms of
cancer have disappeared. In complete remission, all signs and symptoms of
cancer have disappeared, although cancer still may be in the body."
What exactly does this definition mean relative to the
three "treatment decision criteria" . . . You, the citizen, are
supposed to assume that "remission" means a person is cured of their
cancer. But that is not what the definition states. It states there is an
absence of "signs and symptoms." So is there a correlation between
the absence of "signs and symptoms" and the three treatment decision
criteria above?
Generally, the determination of remission is based on a
reduction in the size of the tumor or in the change of some tumor marker. These
things may indicate the number of cancer cells in the body, but they are very,
very crude estimates of the number of cancer cells in the body. These numbers
also do not measure the pain and suffering of the patient (i.e. the quality of
life) or the status of the immunity system, which is very, very important if
all of the cancer cells have not been killed.
And then there is what is likely the greatest mainstream
deception of all: the millions of people who are diagnosed with cancer, but
actually die from the damages done by chemotherapy and radiation, most
frequently major organ failure. All of those deaths are recorded as due to
cancer. Though that does not bolster the mainstream cancer treatment success
rates, it helps hide the dangers and deaths due to mainstream treatments.
It should be plain that the war against cancer is not
being won - and to continue to claim otherwise after over half a century begs
the question of why such obviously false and misleading claims and statistics.
In this respect, one is reminded of the Vietnam War, where we were told that we
won every battle and that we killed many more of the enemy in every skirmish.
And yet the war was a failure and in the end we admitted it, stopped deceiving
the public, and moved on to a different approach to stop the needless loss of
lives. Today it appears that the war with
Iraq will ultimately end the same
way.
The war against cancer has lasted much longer and we have
lost millions and millions of lives. After over half a century of failure, one
has to ask how long will it take to admit it, stop deceiving the public, and
move on to a different approach to stop the needless loss of lives?
Cancer and Holistic Medicine
by Dr. Walter Weston, D. Min.
The medical approach to cancer involves physically invasive procedures that
seek to remove, kill, or transform the cancerous cells, based upon a biological
understanding of disease.
In contrast, the holistic approach to cancer involves non-invasive procedures
focused upon restoring the health of the human energy fields, based upon a
human energy field understanding of disease. Holistic care includes the field
of study called energy medicine. An element of energy medicine is present
in acupuncture, acupressure, homeopathy, herbal medicine, fresh fruits and
vegetables, food supplements, aromatherapy, music therapy, dance therapy,
some massotherapy and chiropractic, physical exercise, the martial arts, tai
chi, qigong, yoga, meditation, compassionate love, emotional release therapy,
touch healing, prayer, and most of the other approaches offered on this web
site. Each approach acts to restore the human energy fields to health that
then signals the body's biological cells to become healthy.
According to researchers in this field, when someone is diseased, the person's
human energy field is also diseased, distorted in specific ways that can cause
and maintain the disease.
Human energy field researchers have long referred to cancer as an energy disease.
As the cancer cells grow in number, they begin developing their own energy
field system that competes with the human energy field system for control
of body functions. In late stage cancer, the cancer energy field system has
overwhelmed the normal human energy fields, blocking therapeutic outcomes
of both medical and holistic treatment.
In the 1980's, a research breakthrough occurred in our understanding of the
role of the human energy field as a cause of disease. It began when energy
researcher Ramesh Chouhan received a government of India grant for a study
at the regional government hospital JIPMER in Pondicherry, India. During eight
years, Dr. Chouhan and his staff did energy screening of the 25,000 women
entering the OB-GYN unit.
They took bioelectrography pictures of the human energy field of the ten fingertips.
Through this massive energy field database and from the women's medical histories,
Chouhan discovered the signatures in their energy fields that were predictive
of oncoming cancer and arthritis.
His research conclusions indicate that three to six months before the onset
of cancer, the physical energy field has become distorted in a distinct way
that is predictive of the physical onset of cancer. Another energy field distortion
occurs six to twelve months before the onset of arthritis. This implies that
when there is a distorted human energy field, it is a major factor in the
onset of some diseases. When I read Chouhan's research paper in 1987, I asked
myself, what could be causing these energy field distortions? Then I remembered
several earlier studies by American psychologists that some cancer patients
had suffered an emotional trauma about eighteen months before the onset of
their cancer. Could there be a connection between emotional pain and appearance
of the distorted energy fields that were predictive of the onset of cancer
and arthritis?
In 1989, I joined Chouhan for further research. Using a low light video camera,
we were able to videotape the changes in the human physical energy field during
my spiritual healing sessions with patients. We discovered that patients,
whose energy fields tested positive for the onset of cancer, could have their
energy fields returned to normal through spiritual healing sessions. These
women did not get cancer.
With the 1994 discovery of Emotional Release Therapy (ERT), I had a new tool
to test out my assumption. So far, that assumption has been proven valid.
After cancer patitents release their emotional pain, their disease symptoms
diminish and disappear, usually within a few weeks.
In 1994, a primary care physician referred a late stage colon cancer patient
to me. The Cleveland Clinic Foundation (Cleveland, Ohio) had just informed
the woman, Maggie, 49, that there was nothing more they could medically do
to help her. Maggie and I had two Emotional Release Therapy sessions together,
after which Maggie said she was emotionally peaceful and was the happiest
she had been since her youth.
Six weeks later, Maggie had an MRI that indicated her cancer cells had diminished
by about 30% since our sessions. Four months after our ERT sessions, another
MRI indicated that she was free of cancer, with all her cells being normal.
Since then, I have assumed that many diseases have a unique signature in the
host's energy field that either precedes and/or maintains the diseased condition.
Using Emotional Release Therapy to release emotional trauma, followed by another
holistic health care approach, produces consistent and predictable healing
of cancer patients.
Once the emotional trauma has been released from every body cell, the human
energy field must be continually strengthened. This is achieved by using any
holistic approach that supports this.
This process meets the medical research criteria for its own research, consistent
and predictable outcomes. I challenge the medical community to proceed with
the clinical research.
Interesting News
