Local Items & Events

Local Events
Check our Calendar of local activities

Local Attractions
A list of some of our best places to visit


Article Categories

Search Our Site


Advanced Search
Article Options
You Recently Viewed...
  1. Introduction to Alternative Cancer Treatments
  2. Will Cholesterol Drugs go Over the Counter Soon?
  3. Fluoride - the Lunatic Drug
Popular Articles
  1. Doctors May Be Third Leading Cause of Death
  2. Introduction to Alternative Cancer Treatments
  3. The Forgotten Clue to the Bacterial Cause of Cancer
  4. Drugs & Doctors May be Leading Cause of Death
  5. Do Killer Microbes Cause Breast Cancer?
Popular Authors
  1. Joseph Mercola, D.O.
  2. News Article
  3. R. Webster Kehr
  4. Alan Cantwell, Jr. M.D.
  5. Dennis Harwood

 »  Home  »  Health News Index  »  Cancer  »  Introduction to Alternative Cancer Treatments  »  Let Us Count The Ways Cancer Treatments Kill
Introduction to Alternative Cancer Treatments
by R. Webster Kehr | Published  8/24/2004 | Cancer | Rating:
Let Us Count The Ways Cancer Treatments Kill

The Many Ways Cancer Treatments Kill the Patient

There are some things in the above quotes that may have shocked you. The concept that people will die more quickly if they have surgery, chemotherapy and radiation treatments may surprise some people. How is it possible that people who go through treatments can die quicker than people who refuse treatments?

In fact, there are many ways that orthodox cancer treatments can kill a cancer patient long before they would have died without treatment of any kind. For example:

  • Malnutrition: About 40% of cancer patients die of malnutrition before they would have died of their cancer. Two of the causes of this malnutrition, which are related to chemotherapy, will now be discussed: First, chemotherapy makes a person very nauseous and causes them to throw-up. This causes many people to "... 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." Cachexia is a common cause of death of cancer patients.

  • Malnutrition: Second, chemotherapy destroys the lining of the digestive tract of many cancer patients, making it impossible for the body to absorb the nutrients of the foods they eat, leading to malnutrition. As one person put it, even if a cancer patient eats like a king, they can literally die of malnutrition.

  • Destroys the Immunity System: Because chemotherapy and radiation destroy a person's immunity system, many cancer patients die of opportunistic infections, such as sepsis or pneumonia. As a side note, more than 200,000 Americans a year die of sepsis. When a cancer patient dies of sepsis it is most likely because chemotherapy destroyed the patient's immunity system, allowing sepsis to easily kill the patient. It may be counted as a sepsis death, not a cancer death. This is just one of many ways that the medical community can hide the true statistics of chemotherapy and radiation.

  • Destroys the Immunity System: Because chemotherapy and radiation kill white blood cells (white blood cells are the body's natural defense against cancer), chemotherapy and radiation destroy not only a body's natural defense against the cancer they currently have, it also destroys the body's defense against new cancers.

  • Destroys the Immunity System: Because chemotherapy and radiation kill red blood cells (red blood cells carry oxygen to the cancer cells and oxygen helps keep cancer from spreading), cancer cells do not get a normal supply of oxygen. Since cancer cells are anaerobic, this allows them to thrive and divide faster.

    • "So, if a Cancer patient is already Acidic & if Acid drives out the oxygen causing an anaerobic atmosphere that Cancer loves, how much sense does it make to take Chemotherapy that will kill more of your oxygen carrying Red Blood Cells? By a matter of deduction and the use of common sense once again, wouldn't that create an even more anaerobic atmosphere and provide an even more desirable situation for Cancer to wreak havoc?"
      http://www.polymvasurvivors.com/what_you_know_4%20Corners%20Protocol.html

  • Kill a Vital Organ: Chemotherapy and radiation frequently kill a vital organ of a patient, such as the liver or heart. Once this happens, without a transplant, nothing, not even alternative cancer treatments, can save the patient.

  • Helps Spread the Cancer: Surgical biopsies can release cancer cells into the blood stream, causing the possibility that the biopsy will cause the cancer to spread, meaning metastasize. Some cancer surgeries can also cause cancer cells to get into the blood stream, especially if the surgery does not "get" all of the cancer cells.

  • Chemotherapy is Carcinogenic: Chemotherapy and radiation can dramatically increase the probability that a person will get certain types of cancer. For example, many women treated by chemotherapy and radiation for breast cancer later develop uterine cancer. Chemotherapy drugs are not only toxic, they are carcinogenic.

  • Lose the Will To Live: Many cancer patients are so devastated by the sickness and nausea orthodox treatments give them, that they lose the will to live, meaning they lose the will to keep fighting their cancer.

Now are you surprised that the three major studies mentioned above all yielded the same conclusion: there is no scientific evidence that orthodox treatments extend the "total life" of most cancer patients?

I should note that alternative treatments for cancer have none of the above problems. Alternative cancer treatments generally include dietary items that build a person's immunity system, cause no pain, provide large amounts of natural nutrients, do not spread the cancer, selectively target and kill cancer cells, cause no damage to normal cells, and so on.

So how can we judge whether orthodox cancer treatments should be used at all?

Everyone knows that surgery, chemotherapy and radiation cause a patient to become very sick and they do massive damage to the immunity system, they can damage vital organs, etc. How, then, can we justify the use of these three treatments? I would suggest that we "judge" orthodox medicine based on three important criteria:

First, the increase in "total life" of the patient by use of the treatment,
Second, the damage done to a patient's immune system, which causes a severe weakness in the person's ability to fight their current cancer, plus their ability to fight future cancers, and
Third, the loss of "quality of life" of the patient.

Orthodox medicine fails in all three of these categories!! First, there is no scientific evidence that in the vast majority of cancers, orthodox treatments extend the "total life" of patients. Second, the damage done to a patient's immunity system is very severe, plus it even kills many red blood cells and can damage vital organs. Third, orthodox treatments not only cause severe trauma to the patient, but they also cause severe damage and stress to their body.

Suppose I made the statement: "In order to justify the damage done by orthodox medicine, to both the body and quality of life of a cancer patient, orthodox medicine must increase the "total life" of the patient by 30%."

Now some people might not like the 30% number, they may pick 20% or another person might pick 100%. But whatever number you personally pick, note that there is no scientific evidence that in 97% of the cases, orthodox treatments extend the "total life" of patients one minute. In fact, in most cases orthodox medicine shortens the life of cancer patients!

Note: The 97% number came from cancer expert Ralph Moss, who could only identify a few very rare types of cancer for which he though orthodox treatments actually extended the "total life" of cancer patients.

Thus, how can we "justify" the use of orthodox treatments? We cannot in 97% of the cases.

Here are images of an accidental chemotherapy spill on a person's hand. Keep in mind that this is the stuff they put in a person's blood veins!

More on Treating the Symptoms of Cancer

Dr. Philip Binzel, M.D., a medical doctor who used alternative cancer treatments, discussed several key issues relative to the treatment of the symptoms of cancer. Let us look at one of his quotes:

  • "When a patient is found to have a tumor, the only thing the doctor discusses with that patient is what he intends to do about the tumor. If a patient with a tumor is receiving radiation or chemotherapy, the only question that is asked is, "How is the tumor doing?" No one ever asks how the patient is doing. In my medical training, I remember well seeing patients who were getting radiation and/or chemotherapy. The tumor would get smaller and smaller, but the patient would be getting sicker and sicker. At autopsy we would hear, "Isn't that marvelous! The tumor is gone!" Yes, it was, but so was the patient. How many millions of times are we going to have to repeat these scenarios before we realize that we are treating the wrong thing?

    In primary cancer, with only a few exceptions, the tumor is neither health-endangering nor life-threatening. I am going to repeat that statement. In primary cancer, with few exceptions, the tumor is neither health-endangering nor life-threatening. What is health-endangering and life-threatening is the spread of that disease through the rest of the body.

    There is nothing in surgery that will prevent the spread of cancer. There is nothing in radiation that will prevent the spread of the disease. There is nothing in chemotherapy that will prevent the spread of the disease. How do we know? Just look at the statistics! There is a statistic known as "survival time." Survival time is defined as that interval of time between when the diagnosis of cancer is first made in a given patient and when that patient dies from his disease.

    In the past fifty years, tremendous progress has been made in the early diagnosis of cancer. In that period of time, tremendous progress had been made in the surgical ability to remove tumors. Tremendous progress has been made in the use of radiation and chemotherapy in their ability to shrink or destroy tumors. But, the survival time of the cancer patient today is no greater than it was fifty years ago. What does this mean? It obviously means that we are treating the wrong thing!

    We are treating the symptom — the tumor, and we are doing absolutely nothing to prevent the spread of the disease. The only thing known to mankind today that will prevent the spread of cancer within the body is for that body's own defense mechanisms to once again function normally. That's what nutritional therapy does. It treats the defense mechanism, not the tumor.

    The woman with a lump in her breast is not going to die from that lump. The man with a nodule in his prostate gland is not going to die from that nodule. What may kill both of those people is the spread of that disease through the rest of their bodies. They got their disease because of a breakdown of their defense mechanisms.

    The only thing that is going to prevent the spread of their disease is to correct the problem in those defense mechanisms. Doesn't it seem logical then, that we should be a lot less concerned with "What are we going to do about the tumor?" and a lot more concerned about what we are going to do about their defense mechanisms?"
    Philip Binzel, M.D., Alive and Well, Chapter 14

I want to emphasize a key point in that quote. Orthodox medicine treats symptoms. They would have you believe that the tumor is the cancer. The tumor is not the cancer. The tumor is a symptom of a symptom. A tumor is a symptom of cancer and cancer is frequently a symptom of a weakened immunity system. Is it best to treat the symptom of the symptom or is it best to treat the cause?

Let us discuss another metaphor.

Suppose there is a farmer that has 100 acres of land. On this farm is a house, a barn, several other buildings, a garden, and so on. Also on this property are a lot of flies and maggots (maggots turn into flies).

Suppose this farm has a lot of cows and horses, and thus a lot of manure. Naturally, you would expect far more maggots around the manure than you would around the house. So suppose the farmer decides to remove all of the manure from his property. Will that solve the fly problem? Not at all. It may kill some maggots and even some flies, but most of the flies will survive to breed new generations of maggots and flies.

Treating cancer that has already metastasized by simply looking at the size of the tumor is like studying how much manure there is on the farm, and ignoring the flies.

Alternative cancer treatments focus on killing the flies (speaking figuratively). Is the manure the problem? No, the flies are the problem. If you safely kill the cancer cells in a tumor, and throughout the rest of the body, the tumor is as harmless as your little finger, even if the tumor is still there.

And therein lies one of the major differences between orthodox medicine and alternative medicine. Orthodox medicine focuses on the manure, alternative medicine focuses on the flies and the things that naturally kill the flies.

Many alternative cancer treatments do not shrink the size of tumors. Some do shrink the size of tumors, but some do not. So what? If the cancer cells in a tumor are dead, the cancer will not spread and the tumor is harmless.

This is what Dr. Binzel was talking about when he stated that orthodox medicine was treating the wrong thing. They are treating the manure, not the flies.

Only if the tumor is pressing on another organ, or is blocking some bodily function, is the tumor dangerous. But in that case the tumor's danger has nothing to do with cancer.

Another interesting thing in that quote is that nothing that orthodox medicine does treats the spread of the cancer. While it is true that some chemotherapy is designed to kill fast spreading cells in the body, chemotherapy always kills far more normal cells than cancer cells, Many normal cells in the body are fast spreading and are killed by chemotherapy.

Chemotherapy would almost always kill the patient long before it would kill all of the cancer cells in a body.

A Timeline

Let us draw a timeline in our minds. At the beginning of this timeline is the date a person is diagnosed with cancer. At the end of this timeline is when this person reaches an age of 100 years.

Let us put a single mark on this timeline. That mark is where this patient would have died if they had refused all types of medical treatment for their cancer. Let us say they did absolutely nothing to change their diet or treat their cancer with either orthodox or alternative cancer treatments. We will call this mark the "baseline." It is the line where a person who refuses treatment would die.

The scientific data is clear - the vast majority of orthodox cancer patients will die to the left of their baseline or on top of their baseline!!

Chemotherapy is 80 year old technology. It never worked, it will never work because, as Dr. Binzel stated, it treats the wrong thing. Modern cancer "research" is still not aimed at treating the right thing. Radiation therapy is even older than chemotherapy and surgery is even older than radiation.

What about alternative treatments? Alternative treatments do no harm to the patient. Thus, because alternative treatments build the immunity system and selectively kill cancer cells, it is clear that it is impossible for alternative treatments to land a patient to the left of their baseline!! Alternative treatments treat the right thing - the immunity system. Virtually all alternative cancer treatments will cause a person to live to the right of the baseline.

The question is this: how do we use alternative treatments to get a person to live well past the baseline? Or to put it another way, how do we get alternative treatments to "cure" cancer, in the sense that the main body of cancer cells is dead and the immunity system is built up to the point it can deal with new cancer cells?

There are more than 100 alternative treatments for cancer that will allow more than half of those who use those treatments to "cure" their cancer. Combining treatments will even extend this number.

The best of the alternative cancer treatments (which are actually combinations of several alternative treatments) will easily cure over 90% of those who use those treatments instead of orthodox treatments. As mentioned above, Dr. Kelley, who treated 33,000 cancer patients, most of whom had been treated by orthodox medicine first, still had a 93% cure rate.

I am totally convinced, based on my extensive research, that if the pharmaceutical industry (i.e. Big Pharma), our government agencies, the American Cancer Society, the American Medical Association, etc., put their money and efforts into natural medicine research, that it would not be long before 99% of all cancer patients would not die of anything related to cancer or cancer treatments, directly or indirectly! People would be more afraid of the flu than cancer! That is the way it should be, but that is not the way it is.

Only the person's immunity system or the safe and selective killing of cancer cells will cause a person to live longer than the baseline. Orthodox treatments destroy a person's immunity system and do not selectively kill cancer cells, nor do they safely kill cancer cells. Chemotherapy is both toxic and carcinogenic.

Yet, all the time doctors tell their patients something like this: "if you don't have chemotherapy you will live six months." What exactly does that mean? It implies that the patient will live longer if they have chemotherapy, than if they avoid chemotherapy. But there is absolutely no scientific evidence that chemotherapy, except for a few rare types of cancer, ever extends the "total life" of a patient. It is nothing but a scare tactic.

Comments

  • Comment #1  (Posted by an unknown user)
    Rating
    this is what I've been waiting for. A book to convince my friends and family. Thank you thank you
     
  • Comment #2  (Posted by bjs )
    Rating
    Well, I am keeping an open mind as I research this article....I am in my third round of chemo for ovarian cancer. Surgry, remission, the whole thing. I feel worse each time and am wondering about quality, not quantity. I do not quite understand the need for the term "total life," as it is confusing. As I said, I am here with an open mind. I want to take charge again.
     
  • Comment #3  (Posted by Betty Sawyer )
    Rating
    It isn't as if I had no education....everything but a dissertation for an Ed. D. But I am wondering why I feel so confused? Is it the chemo? The author?...he keeps leading me around the garden path, taking side trips and smelling the flowers....and I have a feeling he will be hinting at funding in a future segment...actually, he did in this one, if you read closely. Either I am the only person who has ever read this and submitted a response, or the "Administrators" have disallowed previous reader comments fro reasons of their own.
     

Submit Comment