"Considered in its broadest terms, orthodox cancer treatment today is a failure and a disgrace. Contemporary cancer management in a number of respects, constitutes professional malpractice."--Dr Brian A. Richards, in his book The Topic of Cancer (1982).

   In a lecture at the American Cancer Society's annual Science Writers' Conference in New Orleans in 1969, Dr Hardin Jones of the University of California Department of Medical Physics, said:

   "My studies have proven conclusively that untreated cancer victims actually live up to four times longer than treated individuals. For a typical type of cancer, people who refused treatment lived for an average of twelve and a half years. Those who accepted surgery and other kinds of treatment lived an average of only three years . . . "

   In a paper titled "Cancer Cures More Deadly Than Disease", Dr Jones said further:

   "It is utter nonsense to claim that catching symptoms early enough will increase the patient's chances of survival. Not one medical scientist or study has proven that so in any way.* Furthermore, untreated breast cancer cases show a life expectancy four times longer than treated ones. My wife and I have discussed what she would do if breast cancer were diagnosed in her, and we both agree she would do nothing except to keep as healthy as possible. I guarantee she would live longer. For not only does radical surgery or chemotherapy do nothing to prolong a cancer victim's life, but that same person will, in most cases, live a lot longer if he or she refuses treatment. Beyond a shadow of doubt, radical surgery on cancer patients does more harm than good."

*Because if a patient remains free of symptoms for five years he or she is considered to be"cured" of cancer, medical statistics of cure rate do not reflect the true situation. When relatively harmless skin cancers are included as well, the overall cure rate of cancer appears much better still. It is obvious that the earlier cancer is detected in the first place the more chance a patient has of meeting the five-year criterion, but in fact this does not extend the patient's life, it merely makes the statistics look better.

   The continued failure to effectively combat cancer, despite the repeated optimistic promises of new breakthroughs has reduced the credibility of the medical profession, but this failure is made to look less dismal by the misleading survival rates published by medical authorities.

   Conventional medical treatment of cancer is a failure for the obvious reason that it is not addressed at removing the cause but merely at destroying one of the symptoms, ie. the cancer growth. This absurdity 'is due to the steadfastly held view that cancer occurs as a local malfunction of cell growth caused probably by a chance mutation in an otherwise healthy body. The other symptoms of weight loss, fatigue, poor skin tone, etc. are thought to be caused by the tumor growth.

   The three basic medical treatments are surgery, radiation and chemotherapy, all of which are traumatic and more often than not accelerate the decline of the patient.

   Whereas there may be something gained by the surgical removal of a self-contained tumor inasmuch as stopping its parasitic action, in most cases there are millions of stray cancer cells already circulating in the body and usually metastases already established. When a surgeon says "he got it all" he is being very optimistic.

   Dr Robert Bell, MD, FRPS,* formerly a cancer surgeon who abandoned surgery when he realized its futility against cancer and devoted the rest of his life to natural healing, wrote: "it is of no more avail to excise the local manifestation of blood contamination--which cancer undoubtedly is--and thus expect to eradicate the constitutional affliction, than it is to cut out a piece of dry rot in a beam without adopting means to remove the cause of the mischief".

*Dr. Bell practiced medicine from 1870 to 1928; he was a researcher ahead of his time and the author of several books (see list). He originated microphotography for cellular research, and identified the anaerobic nature of cancer cells, describing how cancer cells arose from cells which were originally normal. He abandoned surgery in 1894 and thereafter was constantly embroiled in controversy with the medical establishment in England. Despite malignment from this quarter, he was highly esteemed and was offered a knighthood by King Edward VII, which he graciously declined.

   Further-more, surgery or biopsy, because the subsequent healing process causes de-differentiation of tissue cells, can actually initiate cancer growth. In such cases, said Sir James Paget, "The surgeon has unwittingly supplied by the local injury what was needed for the production of a cancerous growth".

   After surgery, radiation and/or chemotherapy is the next step, because even in "terminal" cases, it is hoped that by retarding the tumor growth, the patient will gain extra time. Radiation usually diminishes the size of the tumor, and this is encouraging to see, but once again this is only the diminution of a symptom. While this is going on, destruction occurs to normal tissue as well, and enormous numbers of circulating white cells of the immune system are destroyed.

   Said Dr W. A. Dewey, Professor of Therapeutics, University of Michigan: "As radium is directed only at the end products of cancer, it is not only useless, but it destroys the healthy tissue around the tumor, destroying blood vessels and protective glands which are most necessary to the healing process, and chases the disease to some internal organ, thus so complicating the case that cure is impossible".

   Chemotherapy is even worse. Senator Hubert Humphrey before he died, called it "death in a bottle". The idea of chemotherapy is to delay cancer growth by preventing replication of the cells, and the so-called advantage of the chemicals is that they circulate through the entire body so reaching all sites of cancer growth whether detected or not. The disadvantages are that all other replicating normal cells are affected as well, resulting in hair loss and ulceration of various tissues, accompanied by nausea, vomiting, vertigo and so on. At the same time, the already diminished immune system is further destroyed.

   It is hard to believe. The medical authorities and the chemical manufacturers admit that the chemicals used can actually cause cancer, and the pharmacists who handle them wear special protective clothing and masks in fear of their own lives These frightening chemicals are then purposefully injected into the very bloodstream of the cancer patient, whose wretched liver now has to try to detoxify this further assault. As the patient's survival depends upon restoration of the liver and the functioning of the immune system, chemotherapy is not only bound to fail, it virtually guarantees the patient's further decline.

   On chemotherapy, Dr Charles Huggins, Nobel Prize winner, of the University of Chicago, said: "I am very much against chemotherapy generally. It simply makes the patients too ill. Remember there are worse things than death. One of them is chemotherapy".

   Sometimes radiation and chemotherapy are used together, and this procedure is the most lethal of all, but is commonly used by doctors obsessed with the destruction of cancer cells regardless of all else. Hope rises as the tumor diminishes in size, and then crashes as the inevitable regrowth appears.

   The entire medical show, nothing less than ridiculous when honestly assessed, is of course fearfully expensive in money, and in terms of grief and despair, immeasurable.

   At the Annual Scientific Meeting on the subject of cancer at Sydney University in November, 1980, Dr P. Shubik of USA was frank. In his opening remarks he said that "there were no cancer experts any more in the USA". What he meant was that cancer has the medical profession perplexed and confused. There is no medical cure presently foreseen, and hope lies mostly in extending the life of patients by improving current methods of treatment. During the meeting, the subjects of diet, physical fitness, exercise and stress were not discussed except for one "workshop" on diet which only two doctors attended. The immune system was discussed once, but not as a serious cancer factor.

   More recent are reports of the work of Professor John Williams' team at the Australian National University in Canberra. Hoping for a breakthrough, they are seeking methods of arresting cachexia, the wasting of the body which occurs in the final stages of cancer. A medical breakthrough will only be achieved however when the fact, known for over a hundred years, is accepted that not only cachexia, but the tumor, the pre-cancer and the "cancer milieu" are all stages of the one degenerative process.

   Why are people still ignorant of medical facts known for one hundred years or more?

   In addition to Drs Koch, Gerson and Moerman, there have been a whole succession of doctors going right back to Dr Lambe in 1809 who have successfully treated cancer by helping their patients correct the constitutional disorders of their bodies.

   Despite their proven methods, these doctors could never break the barrier of prejudice historically surrounding the medical profession, but instead were persecuted in varying degrees as troublesome nonconformists. Such rejection is a peculiar part of human nature and has always been encountered by innovators in all fields.

   For a new method to be accepted by the medical establishment, the fact that it works is almost irrelevant. Unless research is on an "in" subject and conducted on "approved" lines, the authors of research papers have great difficulty having them printed, particularly in the more conservative medical journals. Dr Gerson submitted dozens of papers on cancer therapy to the Journal of AMA but none were accepted. Dr Koch and Dr Moerman, along with Dr Hoxsey and many others, received the same rejection.

   This is why today the medical profession is so ignorant of much vital information, not only information on cancer. The vital facts of diabetes and heart disease also, known for over one hundred years and scientifically proven in the 1930s by Dr I. M. Rabinowitch and in the 1940s by Dr Lester Morrison, are still unknown to most doctors.

   This opposition and cover-up is due not only to conservatism and vested professional interests, it is professed policy of the drug and chemical corporations together with such food industries as the meat, dairy and sugar industries who between them control most of the funding for medical research.

   Perhaps Dr Gerson's story provides the best example. The cure rates he achieved among so-called terminal patients were phenomenal, but he could not get the recognition in the USA that he had achieved in the 1920s and 30s in Europe. Dr Gerson, who had cured the wife of Dr Albert Schweitzer of tuberculosis, and Dr Schweitzer himself of diabetes, was described by Dr Schweitzer: "I see in him one of the most eminent geniuses in the history of medicine. He possessed something elemental. Out of the deepest thought about the nature of disease and the process of healing, he came to walk along new paths with great success."

   Gerson got as far as presenting five "hopeless cases" completely cured of cancer to a Senate subcommittee in Washington in 1946 which was evaluating cancer research. The proposal for support for Gerson was narrowly defeated after heavy pressure from the medical lobby.

   On April 28, 1981, a significant event occurred in Sydney, Australia. Dr John McDougall of Honolulu delivered a public lecture on the subject of diet and breast cancer. In fact, he is researching the subject on a medical grant from the Straub Foundation of Honolulu. He is the first person to receive such a grant; in the past not even Linus Pauling, a double Nobel Prize winner, could do so, so strongly against this sort of research was the establishment. Dr McDougall's dietary approach is based firmly on the Pritikin diet, and he is showing very good results with his patients.

   A valuable step forward, and interesting reading, is the US National Research Council's comprehensive report, Diet, Nutrition and Cancer (1982). Unfortunately, the viewpoint of the committee which prepared the report is still wrongly orientated looking for "mutagens", etc, and no proposal is made of diet and nutrition as a cancer therapy.

   Meanwhile, the cancer death rate continues to increase. In 1971 when the Nixon administration declared war on cancer, one in every six American deaths was due to the disease. Billions of "research" dollars later, in 1978, the rate had risen to one in five, and at this rate of increase, by 1988 it will be one in four.*

*Update 1996: the 1988 prediction proved correct--the present rate is one in three.

   Hopefully the orthodox medical establishment will eventually get the message. In her book Cancer Under Siege (1975), Dr June Goodfield quoted Dr Robert Good, director of the Sloan-Kettering Institute as saying: "When we look back at what we do to cancer today, chopping it out, burning it out, poisoning it out, it will all seem so crude."

   Dr Good, why do you think Dr de Lacey Evans gave up surgery a hundred years ago?

   Let Dr Kasper Blond sum it up. He said: "The problem of cancer must be considered as an insoluble medical problem, because it is essentially a nutritional and social problem: in other words a problem of prevention. Such a problem cannot be solved by animal experiments, vaccines and drugs. Statisticians, pathologists, biochemists and doctors CANNOT SOLVE SOCIAL PROBLEMS."