'THE CANCER RACKET' by Gavin Phillips
Dr. Jai Maharaj
[ Subject: The Cancer Racket, by Gavin Phillips
[ From: Carol <rad...@ix.netcom.com>
[ Date: 15 Feb 2002 11:11:20 -0600
http://www.cancerinform.freewebsites.com/cancerart.html
My article was originally published in the February/March issue of
"Clamor" magazine under the title "Can You Trust Your Doctor?." I
have made a few small changes and additions, but it remains 95% the
same as the one published. It took me at least 100 hours to research
and write it. Feel free to print it, email it, post to websites/discussion
forums or anywhere else for that matter, non-commercially, unchanged
and giving my website as the source. Thank you. Gavin Phillips.
The Cancer Racket
by Gavin Phillips
"Everyone should know that most cancer research is largely a fraud..." -
Linus Pauling Ph.D. (1901-1994) Two times Nobel Prize winner.
By the time that you have finished reading this article, eleven Americans
will have died from cancer. This year, about 1.2 million Americans will be
diagnosed with cancer and some 560,000 will die from it. The rates have
doubled in less than forty years. In 1971 President Nixon declared the
famous "war on cancer". Thirty years and some thirty billion research
dollars later we are still being prescribed the same three failing
treatments; surgery, chemotherapy and radiation treatment. Why?
Three Case Studies
My answer begins with a synopsis of three alternative treatments that have
been suppressed for decades by orthodox medicine. First, I must stress that
none of these treatments is a guaranteed cancer cure. Some work better with
one person than another, depending on the type of cancer.
A vitally important role is one of a strict nutritional diet.
Royal Raymond Rife
The first story is about the Rife radio frequency machine. Royal Raymond
Rife was born 1888, in Elkhorn, Nebraska. Rife's passions were microscopes,
microbiology, and electronics. What is an undisputed fact is Rife's genius
in building incredibly complex light microscopes. Roy built five in total,
the largest and most powerful was his "Universal Microscope" made with just
over 5,200 parts. Electron microscopes today are more powerful but they
kill the minute organisms Rife was attempting to see. You have to be able
to see them alive in order to identify them and, more importantly, identify
what kills them.
It took Rife about twelve years, between 1920-1932, to isolate the cancer
microbe. He named it the BX virus. Rife began subjecting the cancer microbe
to different radio frequencies to see if it was affected by them. After
experimenting for thousands of hours, Rife discovered what he called the
"Mortal Oscillatory Rate" of the cancer microbe. Simply, the exact
frequency that killed it. Rife successfully cured cancer in over 400
experimental animals before testing was ready for humans.
Dr. Millbank Johnson, a close friend of Rife's, setup the Special Medical
Research Committee to witness what transpired at this first clinic. In the
summer of 1934, sixteen terminally ill cancer patients were given three
minutes of the frequency every day. They soon learned that this was too
much because the human body needed more time to dispose of the dead toxins.
They were given three minutes every third day. Fourteen of the supposedly
terminally ill patients were clear of cancer and healthy when the clinic
closed after three months. The other two patients were pronounced cured one
month after the clinic closed. There were very minimal, if any, short term
side effects.
Rife wrote in 1953; "16 cases were treated at the clinic for many types of
malignancy. After 3 months, 14 of these so-called hopeless cases were
signed off as clinically cured by the staff of five medical doctors and Dr.
Alvin G. Foord, M.D. Pathologist for the group."
In 1937 Rife and some colleagues established a company called Beam Ray.
They manufactured fourteen Frequency Instruments. Dr. James Couche, who was
present at the clinic, used one of Rife's machines with great success for
22 years. The most powerful man in medicine at this time was Dr. Morris
Fishbein. He was chief editor of the American Medical Associations (AMA)
Journal. Fishbein had failed anatomy and never treated a patient in his
life. His only motivation was money and power. He decided which drugs were
to be sold to the public based solely on the drug manufacturers willingness
to pay the advertising rates that he set. Fishbein heard about Rife's
frequency machine and wanted to buy a share. The offer was refused. He then
offered Phil Hoyland, an investor, legal assistance to enable him to steal
the company from Rife and the other investors. A lawsuit ensued.
The trial of 1939 put an end to any proper scientific investigation of the
Frequency Instrument. The trial was the undoing of Rife. Not used to being
savagely attacked in open court he crumbled under the pressure. Although he
won the case, he turned to alcohol and became an alcoholic. Fishbein used
his pervasive power within the AMA to thwart further investigation of
Rife's work. Dr. Millbank Johnson died in 1944. In 1950 Rife joined up with
John Crane who was an electrical engineer. They worked together for ten
years building more advanced frequency machines. But in 1960 the AMA closed
them down. Crane was imprisoned for three years and a month, even though
fourteen patients testified as to the effectiveness of the machine. Rife
died in 1971.
Amygdalin/Laetrile
In 1952 Dr. Ernst Krebs from San Francisco advanced the theory that cancer
is a deficiency disease, similar to scurvy or pellagra. His theory was that
the cause of the disease was the lack of an essential food compound in
modern-man's diet. He identified it as part of the nitriloside family which
is found in over 1200 edible plants. Nitriloside, generally referred to as
amygdalin, is especially prevalent in the seeds of apricot, blackthorn
cherry, nectarine, peach, apples and others.
The best way for Krebs to prove his theory would be to have thousands of
people eat a diet very high in amygdalin and monitor them. An enormously
costly exercise to say the least. Fortunately for Krebs, the experiment had
already been carried out. Nestled between W. Pakistan, India and China is
the tiny kingdom of Hunza. The people of Hunza consume 200 times more
amygdalin in their diet than the average American. Visiting medical teams
found them cancer free. In 1973 Prince Mohammed Khan, son of the Mir of
Hunza told Charles Hillinger of the LA Times the average age of his people
is about 85. More importantly, they live vigorous and mentally alert lives
up until a few days before they die.
Only in recent years have the first few Hunza cancer cases been reported.
That is due to a narrow road being carved in the mountain and food from the
"civilized" world is reaching Hunza. In the 1970s the FDA mounted a
widespread and erroneous media campaign alleging that amygdalin is toxic
and dangerous because it contains cyanide. Yes, it does, in minute
quantities. If you eat the seeds from a hundred apples in a day you risk
serious side effects, possibly death. If you eat enormous amounts of
anything you run serious health risks. Aspirin is twenty times more toxic
than the same amount of amygdalin.
Orthodox medicine says that Laetrile (a purified form of amygdalin
developed by Dr. Krebs) was thoroughly tested and found to be worthless.
The longest and most famous Laetrile tests ever performed were run for
nearly five years at Americas most prestigious cancer research center,
Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York. At the conclusion of
the trials, on June 15, 1977, they released a press statement. The press
release read;
"...Laetrile was found to possess neither preventative, nor
tumor-regressent, nor anti-metastatic, nor curative anticancer activity."
So that is it then, right? It does not get more adamant than that, we can
close the book on Laetrile. Unfortunately for the officials at
Sloan-Kettering there was an unforeseen problem. When a journalist asked
Dr. Kanematsu Sugiura; "Do you stick by your belief that Laetrile stops the
spread of cancer"? He replied, "I stick." Those two words were a major
embarrassment to the accumulated demigods on the dais. The reason being is
that Dr. Kanematsu Sugiura was the preeminent cancer researcher in America,
probably the world, at this time. Nobody had ever questioned Sugiura's data
in over sixty years of cancer research before. Sugiura was asked why
Sloan-Kettering was against Laetrile.
"Why are they so much against it"? Sugiura answered "I don't know. Maybe
the medical profession doesn't like it because they are making too much
money."
Sugiura had to be proven wrong. But other researchers had obtained
essentially the same positive results. Dr. Lloyd Schloen a biochemist at
Sloan-Kettering had included proteolytic enzymes to his injections and
reported 100% cure rate among his albino mice. This data had to be buried.
They then changed the protocols of the tests and amounts of Laetrile to
make certain that they failed. Not surprisingly, they failed, and that is
what they reported.
Sloan-Kettering's motives were clearly revealed in the minutes of a meeting
that top officials held on July 2, 1974. The discussions were private and
candid. The fact that numerous Sloan-Kettering officials were convinced of
the effectiveness of amygdalin is obvious, they just were not sure as to
the degree of its effectiveness. But they were not interested in further
testing of this natural product. The minutes read; "...Sloan-Kettering is
not enthusiastic about studying amygdalin [Laetrile] but would like to
study CN (cyanide)-releasing drugs."
Sloan-Kettering wanted a man-made patentable chemical to mimic the
qualities found in amygdalin, because that is where the money is. If a very
effective cancer treatment or cure was found in the lowly apricot seed, it
would spell economic disaster for the cancer industry.
The Hoxsey Remedies
Harry Hoxsey, born 1901, was an ex-coalminer with an 8th grade education.
From the 1920s to the 1950s Harry Hoxsey and his natural remedies would
wage the fiercest battle with conventional medicine this country has ever
seen. The remedies were handed down by Harry's great grandfather, John
Hoxsey. John, a veterinarian, had observed a horse he owned heal itself of
cancer by eating certain herbs in his pasture. John used the herbs to heal
other animals of cancer.
Over the years other natural products were added and the remedy was tried
on humans. The Hoxsey treatment comprised of two components. A herbal tonic
which cleansed the body and boosted the immune system and an external paste
for tumors outside the body. Harry opened his first clinic in Dallas in
1924. By 1950 he was the largest privately owned cancer clinic in America,
represented in seventeen States. Although thousands of cancer patients
swore that Hoxsey had cured them of cancer, Harry was branded a "quack" and
charlatan by the medical community.
Dallas District Attorney, Al Templeton, detested Hoxsey and arrested him an
unprecedented one hundred times in two years. Hoxsey would bail himself out
within a day or two because Templeton could never persuade any of Harry's
patients to testify against him. Templeton vowed to put Hoxsey away for
good, until his own brother secretly used the Hoxsey therapy. His cancer
disappeared and Templeton gave Hoxsey the credit. In a startling about
face, Al Templeton became Hoxsey's lawyer and one of his greatest
advocates. In 1939, Esquire magazine writer James Wakefield Burke was asked
to write a piece on Hoxsey and expose him as a quack. James recalls; "I
came to Texas, I expected to stay about a day, get my information, and
leave. I became fascinated. I stayed for six weeks, every day Harry would
pick me up, bring me to the clinic. "...He would put his arm around these
old men and woman, say, "Dad, them doctors been cutting you up, I ain't
gonna let them sons-o-bitches kill you...He'd treat them and they'd get
better and begin to get well."
James wrote an article entitled, "The Quack That Cured Cancer," but Esquire
did not publish it. The late Mildred Nelson treated people with the Hoxsey
method for some fifty years, but initially she also thought Hoxsey was a
fraud. Mildred's mother, Della, had contracted uterine cancer and orthodox
medicine had given up on her. Mildred's mother and father wanted to try the
Hoxsey treatment. Mildred recalls trying to talk them out of it;
"...I thought well, I'll talk mum out of it you know...they didn't budge.
So I thought, well, I'll go down there and see what's going on, then I can
get them out of it."
"I called Harry and asked him if he still needed a nurse, "I sure do, be
here in the morning." ...By the end of a year I began to realize, gee this
does help, mum had gotten better and to this day is alive and sassy as can
be."
Mildred Nelson and James Burke had done something the National Cancer
Institute has never done; investigate Hoxsey and his treatments first hand.
They found him to be a caring and effective healer who was not profiting
from cancer patients. Harry had swore on his fathers death bed that
everyone would have access to the remedy, regardless of their ability to
pay. As Harry said; "I don't have to do this kind of work, I've got more
oil wells than a lot of men call themselves big producers...Any man that
would traffic on sick, dying, limp the lame or the blind caused from cancer
is the worst scoundrel on earth."
Still, the Hoxsey treatment does not work for everybody. Ironically, Hoxsey
himself contracted prostate cancer, but had to resort to surgery when his
remedies did not work for him. It was not long before the infamous Morris
Fishbein of the AMA heard about the Hoxsey treatment and wanted to buy sole
rights to it, with some other AMA doctors. Hoxsey would only agree if it
stated in the contract that everyone would have access to the treatments,
not just a wealthy few. Fishbein refused and so began a 25-year battle,
fought in the media, between Fishbein and Hoxsey.
The mudslinging culminated in a lawsuit brought by Hoxsey against Fishbein.
Much to everyone's amazement, Hoxsey won the case. Even so, in the late
1950's the FDA closed down all of Hoxsey's clinics. Mildred Nelson took the
treatment to Tijuana Mexico in 1963. Mildred treated thousands of patients
with cancer until her death (her sister has taken over) in 1999. By all
accounts, Mildred was one of the finest, most compassionate caregivers you
are ever likely to find. While thousands state that Mildred cured them of
cancer and with medical records to prove it, the National Cancer Institute
turns a blind eye.
Mainstream Medicine vs. Alternative Treatments
So, what does mainstream medicine say about alternative cancer treatments
in general? The Pavlovian response is a rather supercilious, "They rely on
anecdotal evidence which is not scientific."
Scientists attempt to sweep all patient testimony, verified by a doctor or
not, into the realms of myth and legend. They tell us that in order to test
the efficacy of a cancer treatment it must be subjected to the rigor of
countless double blind studies, clinical trials and peer review groups. In
theory this sounds fine, but in practice several flaws become apparent. In
fifty years of cancer research and umpteen experiments, no headway has been
made in finding an effective treatment or cure for the deadliest cancers.
The incidence of cancer is continually on the rise.
Another point is that these supposed exacting scientific drug trials are in
fact nothing of the sort. Clinical oncologists have an obvious vested
interest in producing positive results from cancer drug trials. Controlled
clinical trials are appropriately named because it is the scientist who
controls the outcome. Scientists are under enormous pressure by the
pharmaceutical companies to produce the "right" results. There are obvious
cases of outright fraud as you will see in the Tamoxifen trials (also see
May 16, 1999 New York Times article). There is also intentional and
unintentional bias such as not following the protocols of the experiment,
burying negative results, patient selection and statistical interpretation.
I see another factor here that has far more to do with human nature than
science. By trying to exclude first person testimony, scientists try to
control the path to truth. Only they have access to more exacting truths
through their complex procedures and mounds of statistics. Nonsense,
scientists have not copyrighted truth. They are fallible men and woman who
have fallen for some ages old human pitfalls; extreme arrogance and the
craving for more power. I will take the word of a relative or friend who
has cancer and no ax to grind, over these scientists with all their
personnel and political interests to serve.
The Establishment
Now I turn my attention to the cancer establishment. The agencies involved
are the National Cancer Institute (NCI), the American Cancer Society (ACS),
the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) and the American Medical Association.
These agencies have a long history of endemic corruption and conflict of
interest with the pharmaceutical industry. I will begin with the cancer
establishments three primary treatments; surgery, chemotherapy and
radiation treatment.
Surgery has been around for centuries and is the most successful. Surgery
is most effective against localized tumors, a small percentage of cancer
patients. If the cancer has spread to other parts of the body, it is far
less successful. If during surgery only one cancer cell reenters the blood
stream, cancer often starts again. How many times have cancer sufferers
heard the words, "we got it all", only to find a few months later that it
has returned.
Chemotherapy drugs were derived from the mustard gas experiments during
World War I and World War II. They were heavily promoted in the early 1950s
by Cornelius Rhoads, head of the newly formed Sloan-Kettering Center for
Cancer Research. Chemotherapy is toxic, causes cancer and wrecks the immune
system. Cancer patients often die from opportunistic infections, or from
the drugs themselves due to their high toxicity.
Alan C. Nixon Ph.D., past president of the American Chemical Society
writes, "As a chemist trained to interpret data, it is incomprehensible to
me that physicians can ignore the clear evidence that chemotherapy does
much, much more harm than good."
Chemotherapy has had good results with a few rare cancers, about five
percent of cancer patients yearly. But according to author Ralph Moss, the
drugs were given to at least 700,000 people in 1991. It is alarming to note
that very few doctors would take their own medicine if they contracted
cancer. In one survey of 118 doctors, 79 responded. Fifty-eight (73
percent) said they would never take any chemotherapy due to its high
toxicity and ineffectiveness. The pharmaceutical companies are making a
fortune though. Chemotherapy drug sales were 3.1 billion in 1989, by 1995
they had almost tripled to 8.6 billion. Predicted sales in 1999 were 13.7
billion.
The final option, radiation treatment, has similar side effects to
chemotherapy. Its effectiveness is difficult to judge due to the fact that
it is most often given to patients after surgery. It may have some use
against a few rare cancers, but is given to hundreds of thousands. There is
a multibillion-dollar investment in radiation equipment throughout
America's hospitals and enormous profits to be made by using it.
Another grubby secret of the cancer establishment is their definition of
the word "cured." According to them you are "cured" if you remain cancer
free for five years. If the cancer returns in six or eight years, then that
becomes a new case to be "cured" all over again. This brings about the
absurd situation of some people being "cured" two or three times in a
twenty-year period. The fact is of course that they were never cured at
all, just sent into lengthy remissions. But it is a convenient way for the
cancer establishment to artificially inflate their success rates.
The National Cancer Institute
The NCI was established in 1937 and was supposed to find a cancer cure or
effective treatment. In over sixty years there have been some small
successes with rarer cancers and some technological advances. But for most
cancer patients the chances of surviving have not changed since the 1950s.
It would be great if the NCI was even half as good at controlling cancer as
their public relations department is at pronouncing its imminent demise.
Over the years there have been dozens of headline smashing "miracle" drugs
which invariably failed to perform anywhere close to the hyperbole. In the
mid 1960s Dr. Lawrence Burton produced a very promising treatment called
Immuno-Augmentative Therapy. The treatment boosted the patient's immune
system. He moved the treatment to the Bahamas in 1977. Burton claimed the
NCI tried to steal his formula and then take credit for it.
Dr. John Beaty sent twenty advanced cancer patients to Burton's clinic. Ten
experienced tumor regression. According to Beaty, "All ten owe their
survival to Dr. Burton's treatment..."
In 1985 the newspapers carried the story that Burton's treatment had become
infected with the AIDS virus. The clinic was closed down. Shortly
afterwards it was revealed that a top NCI official had spread lies which
were published in the AMA journal and in the press in order to close the
clinic down. In 1987 Dr. Vincent DeVita, head of NCI from 1980-1988,
recommended to 13,000 cancer specialists in North America to give
chemotherapy and surgery to all woman with breast cancer, regardless of
whether it had spread. DeVita was a Chemotherapy specialist.
Dr. Alan Levin of the University of California put the argument against
DeVita bluntly: "Most cancer patients in this country die of Chemotherapy."
In 1988 DeVita left NCI for a $400,000 a year position with Sloan-Kettering
in New York as physician-in-chief of the cancer research area. A major
scandal rocked the NCI in 1994 when the Chicago Tribune broke the story of
large-scale fraud in the Tamoxifen drug trials. Dr. Bernard Fisher was in
charge of the taxpayer funded (about 68 million dollars) National Surgical
Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project of NCI. Fisher used data he knew to be
fraudulent in an article published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Samuel Broder, director of the NCI, was also informed about the fraud but
remained silent.
Tamoxifen received enormous media exposure thanks to the NCI. They stated
that in clinical trials it had a success rate of preventing cancer in 45
percent of the woman who took part in the trials. But two smaller trials of
Tamoxifen in England and Italy showed no preventative benefit. Tamoxifen
may just delay the onset of breast cancer. The NCI hardly mentions (if at
all, I could not find any mention of it on their website. -Gavin) the fact
that Tamoxifen is a known carcinogen. It increases the risk of uterine
cancer for woman under fifty by two times and woman over fifty by four
times, as well as other serious side effects. Yet this drug is approved for
cancer prevention in healthy woman. After the embarrassing Tamoxifen
episode, NCI director Samuel Broder resigned in 1995. He took a position at
Ivax, Inc., a company producing chemotherapy drugs. His salary is
approximately twice what he was earning at the NCI.
Another little known fact is that many drugs developed by the NCI, at
taxpayer expense, are then handed over to pharmaceutical companies who reap
the massive profits. A good example of this is the anticancer drug Taxol
which was approved in 1992. The NCI had spent a fortune on clinical trials
and developing the drugs' manufacturing process. They then gave exclusive
rights to Bristol-Myers Squibb who charge us $4.87 per milligram, twenty
times what it costs to make.
The American Cancer Society
Formed in 1913, the ACS was reorganized in 1944. The new leadership
comprised of Albert Lasker, an advertising tycoon and Elmer Bobst,
president of two drug companies. Albert Lasker's wife, Mary, ran the ACS
for thirty some years. Mary was only interested in researching profit
motivated patentable drugs. The big payoff for Mary came in December 1971,
when President Nixon signed into law the "war on cancer." During the decade
of the 1970s Mary Lasker and prominent private cancer research hospitals
such as Memorial Sloan-Kettering ruled the national cancer program.
The ACS has a committee to identify any doctor prescribing treatments that
are not endorsed by them.
For years, the ACS's Committee on Unproven Methods of Cancer Management and
the AMA's Committee on Quackery (disbanded 1974) collaborated in
persecuting anyone threatening the status quo. According to journalist Ruth
Rosenbaum, they "form a network of vigilantes prepared to pounce on anyone
who promotes a cancer therapy that runs against their substantial
prejudices and profits." Samuel Epstein writes about the ACS's Committee on
Unproven Methods of CancerManagement; "Periodically, the committee updates
it's statements on "unproven methods"...Once a clinician or oncologist
becomes associated with "unproven methods", he or she is blackballed by the
cancer establishment. Funding for the accused "quack" becomes inaccessible,
followed by systematic harassment." What happens to the hundreds of
millions of dollars the ACS collects every year? In September 1990, a study
by Dr. James T. Bennett of George Mason University concluded; "The American
Cancer Society...had a fund balance of $426.2 million in 1988, and it held
net investments (after depreciation) in land, buildings and equipment of
$69 million. That same year, the ACS spent only $89.2 million, or 26
percent of its budget on medical research."
In January 1995 "The Phoenix New Times" wrote a lengthy investigative
article about the Arizona chapter of the ACS. They found that in 1994 the
Arizona ACS had only given $47,183, out of the millions raised, directly to
people suffering with cancer. A staggering 95% of funds received went to
salaries and overhead.
The ACS is famous for making highly exaggerated and misleading statements.
On March 15, 1987, the ACS officially announced, "Caught early enough,
breast cancer has cure rates approaching 100 percent." There is no such
thing as a cure for breast cancer, only survival rates. As Dr. Dean Burk
said, "They (ACS) lie like scoundrels."
The ACS and NCI have been intertwined since the 1950s. About half of the
ACS board is comprised of oncologists, radiologists, clinicians and others
with a vested interest in traditional cancer research. Key ACS and NCI
officials often sit on each others committees. ACS board members and their
colleagues receive grants from one or both institutions. This old boys
network maintains the status quo and guarantees that the vast majority of
funding stays within orthodox medicine.
The Federal Drug Administration
In 1970, former FDA commissioner Dr. Herbert Ley said, "The thing that bugs
me is that the people think the FDA is protecting them. It isn't. What the
FDA is doing and what the public thinks it is doing are as different as
night and day."
In 1974 eleven FDA scientists testified in the Senate "...That they were
harassed by agency officials...Whenever they recommended against approval
of marketing some new drug."
The FDA's generic drug scandal hit the news in 1989. Several FDA reviewers
were accepting bribes from some drug companies to speed their drugs through
the process and derail those submitted by competing companies. According to
a Tuft's University study released in 1990, it now takes 12 years and costs
231 million dollars to research, test and obtain approval for a new drug.
Because of the FDA's glacially slow and inept bureaucracy, many potentially
useful drugs cannot be brought to market due to the excessive cost and time
involved.
A battle being fought now epitomizes how far the FDA will go in order to
protect the drug companies profits. For over a year Jim and Donna Navarro
have fought the FDA for the right to give their five year old son, Thomas,
an alternative treatment. Thomas suffered with Medulloblastoma, a type of
malignant brain cancer. After surgery, chemotherapy was recommended. Jim
and Donna asked what the side effects were.
"...Fluid on the middle ear, hearing loss, memory loss, hyperthyroidism,
spinal growth deficit..." The list went on. Worse, permanent retardation.
Jim and Donna researched their son's cancer for thousands of hours. They
found Dr. Burzynski's treatment (antineoplastons) in Houston, that has had
some very good success with this type of brain cancer, with minimal
short-term side effects.
The FDA has been persecuting Dr. Burzynski for over 15 years. They refused
to allow Burzynski to treat Thomas until he had undergone chemotherapy and
radiation treatment first. Jim and Donna pleaded with the FDA commissioner
Jane Henney, her superior Donna Shalala and several politicians, all to no
avail. The FDA would rather see Thomas Navarro dead than taking the
medicine of his parents choice. The FDA's motives are explicitly clear.
Prominent FDA officials protect the pharmaceutical company's profit margins
and are later rewarded with lucrative positions within those same
companies. As Burzynski says; "The past commissioner of the FDA -- now he
is an official of one of the large pharmaceutical companies, with a salary
of 2 million a year."
If the FDA allowed Thomas Navarro access to Burzynski's treatment they
would have opened the door to other people demanding the same option. Very
soon people will want the right to choose any alternative treatment. That
is a road the FDA definitely does not want to go down.
The American Medical Association
The AMA is responsible for licensing of all Doctors in America. They play
an important role in suppressing alternative treatments by networking with
the ACS and FDA in identifying and punishing doctors that step out of line.
Since Morris Fishbein's day the AMA has relied on the revenue received from
drug manufacturers to advertise in their various medical journals.
On February 6, 1973, two former chairman and 1 vice chair of the AMA's
council on drugs testified before Congress and said that the AMA was, "...A
captive of and beholden to the pharmaceutical industry." In 1987 the AMA
was found guilty of conspiring for 20 years to destroy the profession of
chiropractitioners.
The War On Cancer
The supposed "war on cancer" is little more than a grand illusion conjured
up by the cancer establishments propaganda gurus. The formula is eons old.
Repeatedly chisel your message into peoples psyches; "cancer breakthrough",
"scientists say they are "...Turning the tide on cancer." We become
unwitting human satellites, bouncing the deception from one person to another.
There never was a determined, no holds-barred war on cancer. There is a
fanatical and hate-filled war being waged against the few courageous
doctors and innovative healers who prescribe natural treatments. There is a
war of protectionism. Protecting the status quo, protecting the grant money
trough, and above all, protecting the pharmaceutical cartels' monopoly.
There have been at least a dozen very encouraging cancer treatments in the
last seventy years. The Rife frequency machine, Laetrile, Hoxsey,
Antineoplastons, Coley's Toxins, Glyoxylide, Hydrazine Sulfate, Krebiozen,
Immuno-Augmentative Therapy, Dr. Max Gerson's Diet, to name a few. They all
have two things in common. The people advocating the therapy are branded
charlatans or quacks and the treatment is denounced as worthless by
scientists who have been selling us out for generations.
A radical change in cancer research is needed. The natural, nutritional and
other innovative approaches should be studied and made available to cancer
patients immediately. Most important, we must have medical freedom of
choice. For us to achieve those changes, we have to overcome a far tougher
opponent than cancer. A battle Royal against the $110 billion a year cancer
industry. Ultimately, our greatest enemy is apathy.
To succeed, we will need people willing to step up to the plate and speak
out, undeterred by being labeled politically incorrect. People with plenty
of good old fashioned guts, character and an iron will to see it through
until the job is done. We will prevail. It's inevitable. Because when good
women and men put their minds to something, the mightiest walls of
oppression can and will be shattered.
REFERENCES
[info in brackets added by forwarder]
BOOKS.
The Cancer Cure That Worked: Fifty Years of Suppression
By Barry Lynes
[Marcus Books, Ontario, Canada, 1987, 168 pages
ISBN: 0-919951-30-9]
The Healing Of Cancer: The Cures the Cover-ups
and the Solution Now!
By Barry Lynes
[Marcus Books, Ontario, Canada, 1989, 211 pages
ISBN: 0-919951-44-9]
World Without Cancer: The Story of Vitamin B17
By G. Edward Griffin
[American Media, Westlake Village, CA, 1974, 550 pages,
with index and references
ISBN:0-912986-08-5]
The Cancer Industry: The Classic Expose' on
the Cancer Establishment
By Ralph W. Moss, Ph.D.
[Paragon House, 1989]
Questioning Chemotherapy
By Ralph W. Moss, Ph.D.
[Equinox Press, 209 pages, 1995]
The Politics of Cancer Revisited
By Samuel Epstein M.D.
[East Ridge Press, Fremont Center, NY, 1998
ISBN 0-914896-47-4]
ARTICLES
Life Extension Magazine May 1999
http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag99/may99-cover.html
TAMOXIFEN
Cancer Causing Drug Approved For Healthy Women
[http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag99/may99-cover.html]
TAMOXIFEN FOR HEALTHY WOMEN
National Women's Health Network
http://www.ourbodiesourselves.org/tamoxife.htm
CNN Interactive
British, Italian studies find no proof drug prevents
breast cancer
July 9, 1998
http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9807/09/britain.breast.cancer/
CNN Interactive
FDA panel approves potentially powerful breast cancer
drug
http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9809/02/breast.cancer.drug.02/
The Daily California
El Cajon, California, Wednesday, August 11, 1971
Scientific Genius Dies; Saw Work Discredited
[http://www.healthboards.com/cancer/2598.html]
The Smithsonian Report 1944
http://www.rife.de/mscope/mscope6.htm
CBN Website
4-Year-Old Fights for More Than His Life
[no longer available online]
New York Times, May 16 1999
"Drug Trials Hide Conflicts for Doctors"
by Kurt Eichenwald and Gina Kolata
[http://www.nyt.com - available only for a fee]
The Phoenix New Times
CHARITABLE TAKING: THE ARIZONA DIVISION OF THE
AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY EATS UP 95 PERCENT OF ITS
BUDGET WITH SALARIES AND OVERHEAD. CANCER
VICTIMS GET THE LEFTOVER CRUMBS. By John Dougherty
http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/issues/1995-01-26/news3.html/1/index.html
The Attack Dog: The Role of The FDA
Chapter from the book, Racketeering in Medicine-The
Suppression of Alternatives
by James P. Carter, M.D,. Dr. P.H.
[Hampton Roads Publishing, 891 Norfolk Square
Norfolk, VA 23502, 392 pages, 1992
ISBN 1-878901-98-2]
Reason Magazine Oct 1994
An FDA Fable
By Robert Higgs
[http://reason.com/9410/bk.higgs.shtml]
Alternative Medicine and the War on Cancer
by Peter Barry Chowka
[http://members.aol.com/pbchowka/cancer94.html
DOCUMENTARY
"Hoxsey-How Healing Becomes a Crime."
[by Ken Ausubel and Catherine Salveson
Original release date: 1987
Video/DVD Release Date: 1/1/1998
UPC: 790658970403
WELLSPRING MEDIA]
WEBSITES
Gavin Phillips nonprofit site
http://www.geocities.com/freee80/
End of forwarded article
Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti
Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the educational
purposes of research and open discussion. The contents of this post
may not have been authored by, and do not necessarily represent the
opinion of the poster. The contents are protected by copyright law
and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
Panchaang for 4 Magh 5102, Friday, February 15, 2002:
Vrisha Nama Samvatsare Uttarayane Moksha Ritau
Kumbha Mase Shukla Pakshe Shukra Vasara Yuktayam
Uttaraprostapada Nakshatra Sadhya Yoga
Vanija Karana Chaturthee Yam Tithau
Hindu Holocaust Museum
http://www.mantra.com/holocaust
Hindu life, principles, spirituality and philosophy
http://www.hindu.org
http://www.hindunet.org
The truth about Islam and Muslims
http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate
P Moran
Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote in message ...
>Forwarded article
>
>[ Subject: The Cancer Racket, by Gavin Phillips
>[ From: Carol <rad...@ix.netcom.com>
>[ Date: 15 Feb 2002 11:11:20 -0600
>
>http://www.cancerinform.freewebsites.com/cancerart.html
Typical conspiracy stuff. All borrowed from other writings, with no
reference to original sources.
Just one example of how AM rewrites history (about Laetrile)-----
>Dr. Lloyd Schloen a biochemist at
>Sloan-Kettering had included proteolytic enzymes to his injections and
>reported 100% cure rate among his albino mice. This data had to be buried.
This has become a much-quoted AM legend. It is never emphasised that
Schloen found NO EFFECT FROM LAETRILE when used alone. Tumours remitted
only when also injected with proteolytic (digestive) enzymes.
Suguira's experiments suggesting that Laetrile may reduce metastases in
another animal model are also mentioned. Why not mention that animal
cancer experiments rarely translate into humans, and that subsequent
clinical tests and a nationwide appeal for patients cured by Laetrile failed
to show it effective?
Why not point out that Laetrile has not stood the test of time, even within
AM? These days it is Hulda, Germanium, flaxseed oil, zappers, cleanses etc.
And times have changed. Alternatives have support in high places. There
is a huge amount of research into alternatives all around the world. PC SPes
(recently banned because of adulteration with pharmaceuticals) has been
investigated and found to have an effect on prostate cancer --- hopefully
not from adulterant estrogens.
The NCCAM now has 100 million dollars yearly to investigate alternatives,
and is already investigating Gonzales' cancer treatment (includes the fabled
coffee enemas!). Sections of the medical profession are cowed and afraid
to speak out against dubious methods. Nearly all medical schools now have
courses in alternatives.
This conspiracy garbage is so old hat when there has clearly never been a
better time for the poor, timid, wimpish, oppressed purveyors of alternative
cancer remedies to claim their place in medical history by proving their
claims. There has been more than enough whining from sections of AM over
the last twenty years, but the bluff is now being called.
P Moran
Steve Harris
"Dr. Jai Maharaj" <use...@mantra.com> wrote in message
news:health-crime-...@news.mantra.com...
> Forwarded article
>
> [ Subject: The Cancer Racket, by Gavin Phillips
> [ From: Carol <rad...@ix.netcom.com>
> [ Date: 15 Feb 2002 11:11:20 -0600
>
> http://www.cancerinform.freewebsites.com/cancerart.html
>
> My article was originally published in the February/March issue of
> "Clamor" magazine under the title "Can You Trust Your Doctor?." I
> have made a few small changes and additions, but it remains 95% the
> same as the one published. It took me at least 100 hours to research
> and write it. Feel free to print it, email it, post to websites/discussion
> forums or anywhere else for that matter, non-commercially, unchanged
> and giving my website as the source. Thank you. Gavin Phillips.
>
> The Cancer Racket
>
> by Gavin Phillips
>
> "Everyone should know that most cancer research is largely a fraud..." -
> Linus Pauling Ph.D. (1901-1994) Two times Nobel Prize winner.
>
> By the time that you have finished reading this article, eleven Americans
> will have died from cancer. This year, about 1.2 million Americans will be
> diagnosed with cancer and some 560,000 will die from it. The rates have
> doubled in less than forty years. In 1971 President Nixon declared the
> famous "war on cancer". Thirty years and some thirty billion research
> dollars later we are still being prescribed the same three failing
> treatments; surgery, chemotherapy and radiation treatment. Why?
The increased death rate is mainly due to an increase in smoking-related
cancers, especially among women in this period. It suggests for women to
have started smoking in large numbers following WW II was a bad idea. It
says exactly nothing about whether or not surgery, chemotherapy, and
radiation are "failing" treatments. Sometimes they cure, sometimes they
don't. Doing nothing has a much worse prognosis. And there's no doubt that
per 1000 cancer cases, modern therapy has improved over the last 30 years,
not gotten worse. The problem is more cancer. That's due to bad habits
(smoking), radon, and (probably) too many calories in the affluent Western
diet.
Mark Probert
wrote:
>
>Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote in message ...
>>Forwarded article
>>
>>[ Subject: The Cancer Racket, by Gavin Phillips
>>[ From: Carol <rad...@ix.netcom.com>
>>[ Date: 15 Feb 2002 11:11:20 -0600
>>
>>http://www.cancerinform.freewebsites.com/cancerart.html
>
>Typical conspiracy stuff. All borrowed from other writings, with no
>reference to original sources.
>
>Just one example of how AM rewrites history (about Laetrile)-----
Here is a historical fact: Laetriel murdered my aunt. those who push
this poison, AFAIAC, are mass murderers.
SPHINX Technologies
P Moran <pjm...@gil.com.au> wrote:
>
>Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote in message ...
>>Forwarded article
>>
>>[ Subject: The Cancer Racket, by Gavin Phillips
>>[ From: Carol <rad...@ix.netcom.com>
>>[ Date: 15 Feb 2002 11:11:20 -0600
>>
>>http://www.cancerinform.freewebsites.com/cancerart.html
>
>Typical conspiracy stuff. All borrowed from other writings, with no
>reference to original sources.
>
>Just one example of how AM rewrites history (about Laetrile)-----
>
>>Dr. Lloyd Schloen a biochemist at
>>Sloan-Kettering had included proteolytic enzymes to his injections and
>>reported 100% cure rate among his albino mice. This data had to be buried.
>
>This has become a much-quoted AM legend. It is never emphasised that
>Schloen found NO EFFECT FROM LAETRILE when used alone. Tumours remitted
>only when also injected with proteolytic (digestive) enzymes.
So, is this BAD? Is there some reason that only one drug or enzyme
has to be used? Seems to me "cocktails" of drugs are quite popular
these days.
If Laetrile produces 100% remissions only in concert with digestive
enzymes and vitamin A (as Manner found for example), then GO FOR IT!!!!
Oh, and by the way, don't you find it sort of CURIOUS that results for
mice NEVER translate into similar results for humans, where cancer is
concerned? Whereas the "mouse model" is widely used, so I understood,
because the response of mice to disease is so similar to that of humans.
And this makes perfect sense, since the mouse genome is known to be
amazingly similar to that of humans, and since the genome is what controls
all enzyme synthesis and thus all the biochemistry of any organism.
Could this be related to the related finding that in at least one laetrile
clinical trial, the substance being passed off as laetrile was tested by
an independent lab and found not to contain any laetrile?
It seems to me that when $125 *BILLION* per year is at stake (cancer
industry revenues), that SECURITY should be an important consideration
in the design of trials on which treatment policy will be made. But
it seems that at present the foxes are guarding the henhouse when
clinical trials are concerned.
-John S.,
Wellesley Hills, MA
ber...@charter.net
You said in part: " because the response of mice to disease is so similar
to that of humans."
Many times what works on mice doesn't translate into something that works
well in humans. What bothers me the most is the visa versa of this
scenario. Researchers may well discard a drug that doesn't work well on
mice, but might have a great response in humans. We will never know.
Maybe the "CURE" is here, but because it didn't work well on mice ...
Berky the Warrior
Folie à Deux
Steve Harris
news:u7014dh...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> Many times what works on mice doesn't translate into something that works
> well in humans. What bothers me the most is the visa versa of this
> scenario. Researchers may well discard a drug that doesn't work well on
> mice, but might have a great response in humans. We will never know.
> Maybe the "CURE" is here, but because it didn't work well on mice ...
Maybe, but you have the same problem with any cheap pre-screening tool. None
of them are perfect, but nobody has the money to tell. That's what they're
used for.
Animals are used a lot to tell about toxicity. If I have compound X that
poisons rats, mice, ferrets, rabbits and dogs, do YOU want to take it to see
if humans are the exception. You first, bub.
SBH
--
I welcome Email from strangers with the minimal cleverness to fix my address
(it's an open-book test). I strongly recommend recipients of unsolicited
bulk Email ad spam use "http://combat.uxn.com" to get the true corporate
name of the last ISP address on the viewsource header, then forward message
& headers to "abuse@[offendingISP]."
ber...@charter.net
Not what I said. I said that it is discarded because it didn't work on
mice, not that it was toxic to them. I have been on three clinical
trials, and two of the three were Phase I trials. On one of those, I was
the first human to get the treatment drug. It had been tested on mice,
and monkeys before I got it.
It only worked for a short time, but then I got a very low dose. Someone
has to be first.
Berky the Warrior
Folie à Deux
"Steve Harris" <sbha...@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> wrote in message
news:a4pmgq$m3h$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net...
Steve Harris
>
> Not what I said. I said that it is discarded because it didn't work on
> mice, not that it was toxic to them.
Sure, both happen. The second is actually more common.
I have been on three clinical
> trials, and two of the three were Phase I trials. On one of those, I was
> the first human to get the treatment drug. It had been tested on mice,
> and monkeys before I got it.
COMMENT:
Bravo and good for you! No kidding. You've got guts. Similarly, did you know
that the first person to get AZT was an insurance salesman who didn't have
HIV. Some of the first people to get Hep B vaccine were executives at Merck
who weren't really at much risk. If not for people like you in phase I's,
things would go slower.
> It only worked for a short time, but then I got a very low dose. Someone
> has to be first.
>
> Berky the Warrior
> Folie à Deux
Yep. Though I personally would prefer that possible new drugs were tested
first, right out of the beaker, on animal rights activists. THEN in mice and
rabbits and such, for those candidate molecules that don't kill the
activists. This way, everyone should be happy-- the activists, the lab
animals-- even me who believes in personal responsibility for philosophical
views. It's a win-win-win situation.
SBH
ber...@charter.net
I'm not an animal rights activist, but if I had to kill a cow to put meat
on the table, I'd be a vegetarian.
*selah*
>>Forwarded article
>>
>>[ Subject: The Cancer Racket, by Gavin Phillips
>>[ From: Carol <rad...@ix.netcom.com>
>>[ Date: 15 Feb 2002 11:11:20 -0600
>>
>>http://www.cancerinform.freewebsites.com/cancerart.html
>
>Typical conspiracy stuff. All borrowed from other writings, with no
>reference to original sources.
>
>Just one example of how AM rewrites history (about Laetrile)-----
>
>>Dr. Lloyd Schloen a biochemist at
>>Sloan-Kettering had included proteolytic enzymes to his injections and
>>reported 100% cure rate among his albino mice. This data had to be buried.
>
>This has become a much-quoted AM legend. It is never emphasised that
>Schloen found NO EFFECT FROM LAETRILE when used alone. Tumours remitted
>only when also injected with proteolytic (digestive) enzymes.
>
Would you know where I could get more information about Schloen's tests?
--
remove "noesppam" to reply
Neil Jensen
<mark_p...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Feb 2002 08:34:19 +1000, "P Moran" <pjm...@gil.com.au>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote in message ...
> >>Forwarded article
> >>
> >>[ Subject: The Cancer Racket, by Gavin Phillips
> >>[ From: Carol <rad...@ix.netcom.com>
> >>[ Date: 15 Feb 2002 11:11:20 -0600
> >>
> >>http://www.cancerinform.freewebsites.com/cancerart.html
> >
> >Typical conspiracy stuff. All borrowed from other writings, with no
> >reference to original sources.
You, your references and historical stuff be damned. Open your eyes and
look around you. It's the same thing wherever one wishes to look:
Energy, pharmaceuticals, food production ALL tied to political
money-hungry money grubbing politicians and industrialists who sell
poison and pollute our environment. There's your historical stuff. The
Enron-dubyh connection is just the most recent, most visible (if you
take your blinders off).
> >
> >Just one example of how AM rewrites history (about Laetrile)-----
>
> Here is a historical fact: Laetriel murdered my aunt. those who push
> this poison, AFAIAC, are mass murderers.
Here is an even better historical fact: Bullshit! Laetrile did not help
nor harm me, but I have met several people in my quest for a cure for
my rectal cancer that WERE cured with the help of Laetrile.
>
> >>Dr. Lloyd Schloen a biochemist at
> >>Sloan-Kettering had included proteolytic enzymes to his injections and
> >>reported 100% cure rate among his albino mice. This data had to be buried.
> >
> >This has become a much-quoted AM legend. It is never emphasised that
> >Schloen found NO EFFECT FROM LAETRILE when used alone. Tumours remitted
> >only when also injected with proteolytic (digestive) enzymes.
It may need help. So what?
> >Suguira's experiments suggesting that Laetrile may reduce metastases in
> >another animal model are also mentioned. Why not mention that animal
> >cancer experiments rarely translate into humans, and that subsequent
> >clinical tests and a nationwide appeal for patients cured by Laetrile failed
> >to show it effective?
Why not mention that those who DID come forward were ignored? I do
agree, however, that animal tests prove nothing except that a
particular substance effects a particular animal in a particular way.
Animal tests sure are handy though when pharmaceutical companies want
to do the required LD-50 tests that absolve them from any
responsibility when their drugs start killing people. All they have to
do is just find the right animal.
> >Why not point out that Laetrile has not stood the test of time, even within
> >AM? These days it is Hulda, Germanium, flaxseed oil, zappers, cleanses etc.
And a whole lot else: Allergostop, Eurixor (and various other mistletoe
extracts), Factor AF-2, Thymoject, Vitamin C, Alpha-Lipoic Acid,
N-Acetyl Cysteine, Benzaldehyde, Folic Acid, Vitamin B6, Beta Glucan,
et al.
> >And times have changed. Alternatives have support in high places. There
> >is a huge amount of research into alternatives all around the world. PC SPes
> >(recently banned because of adulteration with pharmaceuticals) has been
> >investigated and found to have an effect on prostate cancer --- hopefully
> >not from adulterant estrogens.
> >
> >The NCCAM now has 100 million dollars yearly to investigate alternatives,
> >and is already investigating Gonzales' cancer treatment (includes the fabled
> >coffee enemas!). Sections of the medical profession are cowed and afraid
> >to speak out against dubious methods. Nearly all medical schools now have
> >courses in alternatives.
And, if history repeats itself, any tests they perform will be skewed
to prove exactly what they WANT to prove.
> >
> >This conspiracy garbage is so old hat when there has clearly never been a
> >better time for the poor, timid, wimpish, oppressed purveyors of alternative
> >cancer remedies to claim their place in medical history by proving their
> >claims. There has been more than enough whining from sections of AM over
> >the last twenty years, but the bluff is now being called.
> >
What i DO know is that, contrary to prophecies by the pushers of
"proven therapies" on these newsgroups (proven to line the pockets of
the rich and powerful, proven to not cure cancer, proven to make people
die a slow, painful death....), my stage II rectal tumor is gone. It is
gone thanks solely to alternative medicine which I had to go to Tijuana
to receive! My hemoglobin is NORMAL, blood oxygen levels NORMAL, liver
function NORMAL, bowel function NORMAL, lymph nodes NORMAL, CEA markers
ZERO POINT EIGHT (normal = < 3.0), tumor GONE, and I'm feeling
fantastic. The only blood test that did not show NORMAL was my white
cell count which was slightly elevated -- exactly what the drugs and
supplements I'm taking are supposed to do. I also know that the doctors
at the VA who have been telling me for almost a year now that I'm doing
the wrong thing by refusing their treatments told me last Monday
(02/25/02) that I "...must be doing the right thing, keep it up." Since
I refused all of their "proven therapies", they know that alternative
medicine is wholly responsible.
Any sincere, open minded people here who wish to find out how my tumor
was overcome with the help of true healers can see my Cancer Journal at
<http://www.sumeria.net/health/rectcan.html>.
So much for Steph and his fellow prophets of doom that infest the
cancer newsgroups. I'm not even slightly sorry to disappoint you. Did I
just come back here to gloat? Yup! I'm out'a here.
--
Neil Jensen -- ne...@sumeria.net
<http://www.sumeria.net>
It has recently been discovered that
research causes cancer in rats.
Steph
"Neil Jensen" <ne...@sumeria.net> wrote in message
news:020320021525466225%ne...@sumeria.net...
>
> So much for Steph and his fellow prophets of doom that infest the
> cancer newsgroups. I'm not even slightly sorry to disappoint you. Did I
> just come back here to gloat? Yup! I'm out'a here.
>
I'm really happy you're doing well. Keep us informed.
Barbara
I am in the middle of a battle with cancer, and it is a real eye
opener. For years I have been very uncomfortable with the power that
the 'drug industry' has and I am not 100% sure that a cure for some
diseases does in fact exist. You do not have to be a genius in math
to figure out yearly costs for one person being treated for cancer. It
would have a profound effect on the 'bottom line' for drug companies
if a cure for HIV or cancer were discovered. I have sat in a hospital
receiving treatment and looking around the room (which is full to
capacity) and seeing some of the people who have been subjected to
chemotherapy is heartbreaking. Their bodies have been bombarded with
so many deadly drugs that they almost don't look human. Where is the
compassion in that? No one can stand in judgement of another person's
decision to agree with a doctor who puts poison in their body in the
HOPE that it might help. I am sorry but to bring a person as close to
death as possible to battle a disease doesn't make much sense to me.
These drugs bring your immune system to "ZERO", they kill all dividing
cells, cancer being a dividing cell, as well as any good dividing
cells in our body. You would think that they would develop a drug
which would boost your immune system to the point of being supremely
powerful over those cells which threaten to overtake the body.
Instead we turn beautiful humans into freaky looking creatures who
everyone knows is ill. I've been treated once with chemo and had such
a bad reaction that I turned my back on the whole process. Now 3
years later I am back to battle again, the one big difference is now
chemo wouldn't help. No one can tell me if it would have helped
before but it is too late for regrets. I don't believe I will live to
see the day when someone of GREAT and I mean GREAT power challenges
the almight drug companies.
Steve Harris
>I am in the middle of a battle with cancer, and it is a real eye
>opener. For years I have been very uncomfortable with the power that
>the 'drug industry' has and I am not 100% sure that a cure for some
>diseases does in fact exist.
You mean a cure for some cancers that is being surpressed? Possibly kept in
the safe next to the 100 mpg carburetor the oil companies are surpressing,
which is right next to the suite where Elvis stays when he's in town?
> You do not have to be a genius in math
>to figure out yearly costs for one person being treated for cancer. It
>would have a profound effect on the 'bottom line' for drug companies
>if a cure for HIV or cancer were discovered.
It would have a profound effect on the bottom line of a lot of companies if
teleportation were discovered too. It does not follow that American Airlines
has Star Trek transporter that they're not letting you use.
> I have sat in a hospital
>receiving treatment and looking around the room (which is full to
>capacity) and seeing some of the people who have been subjected to
>chemotherapy is heartbreaking. Their bodies have been bombarded with
>so many deadly drugs that they almost don't look human. Where is the
>compassion in that?
Look, I am sure that athletes Scott Hamilton and Lance Armstrong, both
discovered to have testicular cancer only AFTER it had spread throughout
their bodies, had days during their chemotherapy when (superb physical
specimens though they were) they looked like hell. But the doctors were
trying to save their lives, and succeeded. Neither of them spends any more
money at the drug companies, because they're fixed. Cured. Of a disease
which was nearly uniformly fatal at that stage 20 years ago. Even 10.
Cancer is not one disease, but many, and progress is made in the war on
cancer as it is made in any war: one battle and little hill at a time. Here
some progress, there not as much. But overall, we are gaining. If it's not
fast enough for you, don't blame some giant conspiracy. Blame the FDA for
holding up research. If this was a conspiracy you'd see no gains at all. As
it is, you're unhappy because progress was made in a tumor somebody else
had, and not one you have. That's understandable, but please understand
that it's also irrational and a little bit petty. Surely you can find some
more creative way to use your time?
> No one can stand in judgement of another person's
>decision to agree with a doctor who puts poison in their body in the
>HOPE that it might help. I am sorry but to bring a person as close to
>death as possible to battle a disease doesn't make much sense to me.
I'm sorry, too. It made sense to Armstrong and Hamilton. The ultimate
decider of what views are rational in this universe and what views are not,
is who gets what they want from the future and who doesn't.
>These drugs bring your immune system to "ZERO", they kill all dividing
>cells, cancer being a dividing cell, as well as any good dividing
>cells in our body. You would think that they would develop a drug
>which would boost your immune system to the point of being supremely
>powerful over those cells which threaten to overtake the body.
This turns out to be difficult because those cells are YOU. In any case,
there's no point arguing the matter. It's one thing to have a nice blue sky
attitude on how cancer should be killed, it's another thing to make it work.
I would think instead of airplanes they'd develop matter transporters. Of
course, the details are tricky.
I don't believe I will live to
>see the day when someone of GREAT and I mean GREAT power challenges
>the almight drug companies
The drug companies are already hamstrung by the FDA, which doesn't (I
promise) feel your pain. Or anybody else's. What principle of the universe
is it that you think makes the FDA care whether or not you die of cancer?
If you do, it's no skin off THEIR nose. The drug companies, at least, have
a financial interest in finding cures, because people will pay a lot of
money to be cured of cancer. The FDA doesn't get into trouble if nobody
finds a cure for your cancer and you die of it. They only get into trouble
if you have some bad reaction to some TREATMENT for your cancer. So guess
what human activity the FDA spends most activity interfering in? Yup,
treatment development.
What great power do you envision as challenging the FDA? It's merely the
governmental manifestation of a bunch of complacent people who don't give a
damn about medical research when they're well, and scream about paying for
it (in the price of pharmaceuticals) when they're ill. What do you expect?
SBH
--
I welcome email from any being clever enough to fix my address. It's open
book. A prize to the first spambot that passes my Turing test.
.
Keith F. Lynch
> Look, I am sure that athletes Scott Hamilton and Lance Armstrong, both
> Neither of them spends any more money at the drug companies, because
> they're fixed.
Ouch. A most unfortunate turn of phrase. But true in both senses of
the word.
--
Keith F. Lynch - k...@keithlynch.net - http://keithlynch.net/
I always welcome replies to my e-mail, postings, and web pages, but
unsolicited bulk e-mail (spam) is not acceptable. Please do not send me
HTML, "rich text," or attachments, as all such email is discarded unread.
alarca
"Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote in message
news:a6doja$3t2$1...@panix2.panix.com...
> Steve Harris <sbha...@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> wrote:
> > Look, I am sure that athletes Scott Hamilton and Lance Armstrong, both
> > discovered to have testicular cancer ...
>
> > Neither of them spends any more money at the drug companies, because
> > they're fixed.
>
> Ouch. A most unfortunate turn of phrase. But true in both senses of
> the word.
Only partl
alarca
"Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote in message
news:a6doja$3t2$1...@panix2.panix.com...
> > Look, I am sure that athletes Scott Hamilton and Lance Armstrong, both
> > discovered to have testicular cancer ...
>
> > Neither of them spends any more money at the drug companies, because
> > they're fixed.
Ooops, hit 'send' by mistake. Let's try that one again ...
Didn't Lance Armstrong and his wife have a child *after* his treatment and
recovery? I have a photo somewhere of him on the podium, in his winner's
yellow jersey, holding up a little boy dressed in a tiny yellow jersey too.
IIRC, it would have been on the last day of the 2000 Tour de France.
If true, he must be only 'half-fixed'.
regards
Alarca
JX Brown
alarca <don'teven...@about.it> wrote in message
news:wKti8.3572$y76.7...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
>
> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote in message
> news:a6doja$3t2$1...@panix2.panix.com...
> > Steve Harris <sbha...@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> wrote:
> > > Look, I am sure that athletes Scott Hamilton and Lance Armstrong, both
> > > discovered to have testicular cancer ...
> >
> > > Neither of them spends any more money at the drug companies, because
> > > they're fixed.
>
> Ooops, hit 'send' by mistake. Let's try that one again ...
>
> Didn't Lance Armstrong and his wife have a child *after* his treatment and
> recovery? I have a photo somewhere of him on the podium, in his winner's
> yellow jersey, holding up a little boy dressed in a tiny yellow jersey
too.
> IIRC, it would have been on the last day of the 2000 Tour de France.
>
> If true, he must be only 'half-fixed'.
>
> regards
> Alarca
>
> >
alarca
"JX Brown" <jxb...@xyz.xyz> wrote in message
news:qHui8.1426$o31.105...@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
OK - I did wonder about this (but not too much :>).
regards
Alarca
>
>
Mark Probert
wrote:
>
>"Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote in message
>news:a6doja$3t2$1...@panix2.panix.com...
>> Steve Harris <sbha...@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> wrote:
>> > Look, I am sure that athletes Scott Hamilton and Lance Armstrong, both
>> > discovered to have testicular cancer ...
>>
>> > Neither of them spends any more money at the drug companies, because
>> > they're fixed.
>
>Ooops, hit 'send' by mistake. Let's try that one again ...
>
>Didn't Lance Armstrong and his wife have a child *after* his treatment and
>recovery? I have a photo somewhere of him on the podium, in his winner's
>yellow jersey, holding up a little boy dressed in a tiny yellow jersey too.
>IIRC, it would have been on the last day of the 2000 Tour de France.
>
>If true, he must be only 'half-fixed'.
Many years ago I took a flight from San Diego to NYC and got bumped up
to 1st Class. My seat mate was George Carlin.
We had a delightful time.
This woman mentioned that she was returning to NY with a dog she had
bought from a breeder. She planned to have the dog 'fixed.'
I immediately pointed out that the dog would not be 'fixed' but
*****broken*****, in body and spirit.
Carlin cracked up.
Steve Harris
news:3c8cc5b3...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
> On Sat, 9 Mar 2002 19:53:31 -0000, "alarca" <don'teven...@about.it>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote in message
> >news:a6doja$3t2$1...@panix2.panix.com...
> >> Steve Harris <sbha...@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> wrote:
> >> > Look, I am sure that athletes Scott Hamilton and Lance Armstrong,
both
> >> > discovered to have testicular cancer ...
> >>
> >> > Neither of them spends any more money at the drug companies, because
> >> > they're fixed.
> >
> >Ooops, hit 'send' by mistake. Let's try that one again ...
> >
> >Didn't Lance Armstrong and his wife have a child *after* his treatment
and
> >recovery? I have a photo somewhere of him on the podium, in his winner's
> >yellow jersey, holding up a little boy dressed in a tiny yellow jersey
too.
> >IIRC, it would have been on the last day of the 2000 Tour de France.
> >
> >If true, he must be only 'half-fixed'.
Nope, the possibility which you haven't considered (frozen pre-donated
sperm) is the correct one. He was quite candid about that in his book.
>
> Many years ago I took a flight from San Diego to NYC and got bumped up
> to 1st Class. My seat mate was George Carlin.
>
> We had a delightful time.
>
> This woman mentioned that she was returning to NY with a dog she had
> bought from a breeder. She planned to have the dog 'fixed.'
>
> I immediately pointed out that the dog would not be 'fixed' but
> *****broken*****, in body and spirit.
>
> Carlin cracked up.
Yuk, yuk indeed. But after having an intact dog pee on your walls, you may
come to consider your house a tad broken. And after having intact dogs who
are supposed to be outside for a quick bathroom break escape from you to run
wild after females in heat, where they are bound to be hit by cars or picked
up the local pound, you may come to understand that there are many ways in
which dogs can be broken. And your wallet too.
alarca
> "Mark Probert" <Mark_Prob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3c8cc5b3...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
> > On Sat, 9 Mar 2002 19:53:31 -0000, "alarca" <don'teven...@about.it>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote in message
> > >news:a6doja$3t2$1...@panix2.panix.com...
> > >> Steve Harris <sbha...@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> wrote:
> > >> > Look, I am sure that athletes Scott Hamilton and Lance Armstrong,
> both
> > >> > discovered to have testicular cancer ...
> > >>
> > >> > Neither of them spends any more money at the drug companies,
because
> > >> > they're fixed.
> > >
> > >Ooops, hit 'send' by mistake. Let's try that one again ...
> > >
> > >Didn't Lance Armstrong and his wife have a child *after* his treatment
> and
> > >recovery? I have a photo somewhere of him on the podium, in his
winner's
> > >yellow jersey, holding up a little boy dressed in a tiny yellow jersey
> too.
> > >IIRC, it would have been on the last day of the 2000 Tour de France.
> > >
> > >If true, he must be only 'half-fixed'.
>
>
> Nope, the possibility which you haven't considered (frozen pre-donated
> sperm) is the correct one. He was quite candid about that in his book.
Yep - haven't read his book but should watch my hubby's tapes on him, as it
might be mentioned there. Just hadn't cared to think too deeply about this
one (lol
regards
Alarca
Neil
<sbha...@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> wrote:
>
> You mean a cure for some cancers that is being surpressed? Possibly kept in
> the safe next to the 100 mpg carburetor the oil companies are surpressing,
> which is right next to the suite where Elvis stays when he's in town?
Of course not. Why would they do such a thing for mere money and power?
You're still as clueless as ever Stevie-pooh. Some things never change.
>
>
> It would have a profound effect on the bottom line of a lot of companies if
> teleportation were discovered too. It does not follow that American Airlines
> has Star Trek transporter that they're not letting you use.
Get real jerk! Your clever words just serve to how clueless you really
are. "...if teleportation were discovered too"? Duh! It hasn't. Does
that somehow prove that cures for cancer, not acknowledged by Cancer,
Ic. work? Of course not. Idiot!
> Look, I am sure that athletes Scott Hamilton and Lance Armstrong, both
> discovered to have testicular cancer only AFTER it had spread throughout
> their bodies, had days during their chemotherapy when (superb physical
> specimens though they were) they looked like hell. But the doctors were
> trying to save their lives, and succeeded. Neither of them spends any more
> money at the drug companies, because they're fixed. Cured. Of a disease
> which was nearly uniformly fatal at that stage 20 years ago. Even 10.
They sure helped George Harrison too!
> Cancer is not one disease, but many, and progress is made in the war on
> cancer as it is made in any war: one battle and little hill at a time. Here
> some progress, there not as much. But overall, we are gaining. If it's not
> fast enough for you, don't blame some giant conspiracy. Blame the FDA for
> holding up research. If this was a conspiracy you'd see no gains at all. As
> it is, you're unhappy because progress was made in a tumor somebody else
> had, and not one you have. That's understandable, but please understand
> that it's also irrational and a little bit petty. Surely you can find some
> more creative way to use your time?
Cancer is a SYSTEMIC disease, not a localized disease
> > No one can stand in judgement of another person's
> >decision to agree with a doctor who puts poison in their body in the
> >HOPE that it might help. I am sorry but to bring a person as close to
> >death as possible to battle a disease doesn't make much sense to me.
But they damned sure CAN stand in judgement of Cancer, Inc. propaganda
that destroys natural, living judgement and replaces it with a single,
standardized mind-set.
> I'm sorry, too. It made sense to Armstrong and Hamilton. The ultimate
> decider of what views are rational in this universe and what views are not,
> is who gets what they want from the future and who doesn't.
>
> >These drugs bring your immune system to "ZERO", they kill all dividing
> >cells, cancer being a dividing cell, as well as any good dividing
> >cells in our body. You would think that they would develop a drug
> >which would boost your immune system to the point of being supremely
> >powerful over those cells which threaten to overtake the body.
>
> This turns out to be difficult because those cells are YOU. In any case,
> there's no point arguing the matter. It's one thing to have a nice blue sky
> attitude on how cancer should be killed, it's another thing to make it work.
> I would think instead of airplanes they'd develop matter transporters. Of
> course, the details are tricky.
There you go with the bullshit in a feeble attempt to blow smoke.
> The drug companies are already hamstrung by the FDA, which doesn't (I
> promise) feel your pain. Or anybody else's. What principle of the universe
> is it that you think makes the FDA care whether or not you die of cancer?
> If you do, it's no skin off THEIR nose. The drug companies, at least, have
> a financial interest in finding cures, because people will pay a lot of
> money to be cured of cancer. The FDA doesn't get into trouble if nobody
> finds a cure for your cancer and you die of it. They only get into trouble
> if you have some bad reaction to some TREATMENT for your cancer. So guess
> what human activity the FDA spends most activity interfering in? Yup,
> treatment development.
The FDA simply serves the drug companies, not the people. The revolving
door between the drug companies and the FDA is well known and well
documented. It provides a disease-care system, not a health-care
system.
> What great power do you envision as challenging the FDA? It's merely the
> governmental manifestation of a bunch of complacent people who don't give a
> damn about medical research when they're well, and scream about paying for
> it (in the price of pharmaceuticals) when they're ill. What do you expect?
It will happen one success at a time. Each person who is cured of
cancer, et al, and tells others how they were cured will start an
avalanche. Of course the medical orthodoxy will fight back. They will
pay people to provide spin control by blowing smoke in the newsgroups
and elsewhere. They will try to pass laws making non-toxic disease
fighting agents illegal, as they are trying to do in less than 12 hours
in the European Union. Over 400,000 people have risen up in opposition
to this latest gambit by the pharmaceutical cartel. (see popup floating
window at <http://www.sumeria.net/>)
Neil
<st...@vancouver.island> wrote:
Just put my name on your "anecdotal evidence" list.
Steve Harris
news:110320021403141335%m...@myisp.com...
> > You mean a cure for some cancers that is being surpressed? Possibly
kept in
> > the safe next to the 100 mpg carburetor the oil companies are
surpressing,
> > which is right next to the suite where Elvis stays when he's in town?
>
> Of course not. Why would they do such a thing for mere money and power?
> You're still as clueless as ever Stevie-pooh. Some things never change.
That's true. I see you're as gullible and paranoid as ever.
> > Look, I am sure that athletes Scott Hamilton and Lance Armstrong, both
> > discovered to have testicular cancer only AFTER it had spread throughout
> > their bodies, had days during their chemotherapy when (superb physical
> > specimens though they were) they looked like hell. But the doctors were
> > trying to save their lives, and succeeded. Neither of them spends any
more
> > money at the drug companies, because they're fixed. Cured. Of a disease
> > which was nearly uniformly fatal at that stage 20 years ago. Even 10.
>
> They sure helped George Harrison too!
COMMENT:
George, the life long smoker, got lung cancer, which spread to his throat
and brain. George had a lot of money and an open mind, and one suspects he
tried a lot of alternative therapies, too. None of it worked.
There is today in 2002 a cure for testicular cancer some good fraction of
the time, but as yet, still no cure for lung cancer which has spread (which
95% of the time it already has, when diagnosed). That's why we doctors
suggest you don't smoke. George didn't listen, so he got to trade his sitar
for a harp. Just as the laws of physics do not make exceptions for
princesses in automobiles, neither do cigarettes discriminate when it comes
to famous musicians. So it goes.
You know why attorneys make lousy pilots? They forget that in an airplane,
they're arguing with God.
Mike McC
> Forwarded article
>
> [ Subject: The Cancer Racket, by Gavin Phillips
> [ From: Carol <rad...@ix.netcom.com>
> [ Date: 15 Feb 2002 11:11:20 -0600
>
There was a saying in the Roman Empire, "Convince a slave he's free,
and he will fight to keep his slavery." The bread and circuses have
improved over the years, but not much else.
Mike McC
Maleki
"Steve Harris" <sbha...@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> wrote in message news:a6judc$g7a$1...@slb5.atl.mindspring.net...
> [...]
> There is today in 2002 a cure for testicular cancer some good fraction of
> the time, but as yet, still no cure for lung cancer which has spread (which
> 95% of the time it already has, when diagnosed). That's why we doctors
Is it true that regardless of how many years one has
smoked, if one quits there comes a time that the body
is exactly as if it was never exposed to smoking? I remember
seeing a graph in a health book that showed this period
following the quitting is 15 years.
Steve Harris
news:a6mn68$fmpno$2...@ID-20678.news.dfncis.de...
Something like that for cancer (excess risk goes away with half-life around
7 years). However, the excess risk from stroke and MI goes mostly away in
the first year, and is nearly all gone by two years. That's shocking. It's
really too long a time to be due to acute chemical poisoning things like
nicotene or carbon monoxide, but it's really too fast for plaque regression?
So what is it that takes a year or two to regrow and fix itself. Perhaps
something to do with the epithelium of arteries. But nobody really knows
for sure.
BTW, your body is never really the same if you've smoked long enough. The
emphysema you have remains, because the alveoli are gone, and holes are all
that are left.
--
Steve Harris
You can email me at sbhar...@ix.netcom.com
But remove the numerals in the address first.
==============================
Our nada who art in Nada
Nada be thy nada..
-- Dada Hemingway
==========================
Maleki
"Steve Harris" <SBHar...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:a6o784$6rp$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
Auch. Do you know if 13 years of smoking is long enough? I
smoked from when I was 17 (that was a requirement, I became
a hippie) to the age of 30 then quit altogether. I don't feel any
particular breathing problem though.
But isn't it true that all cells are replaced anew every 6 years or so?
I know this is a bit of 'popular" knowledge and isn't exact, but doesn't
this apply to those air sacs at least?
sle...@scummyisp.com
"Steve Harris" <SBHar...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>"Maleki" <male...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:a6mn68$fmpno$2...@ID-20678.news.dfncis.de...
>> Is it true that regardless of how many years one has
>> smoked, if one quits there comes a time that the body
>> is exactly as if it was never exposed to smoking? I remember
>> seeing a graph in a health book that showed this period
>> following the quitting is 15 years.
>Something like that for cancer (excess risk goes away with half-life around
>7 years). However, the excess risk from stroke and MI goes mostly away in
>the first year,
<snip>
>BTW, your body is never really the same if you've smoked long enough. The
>emphysema you have remains, because the alveoli are gone, and holes are all
>that are left.
That "never exposed to smoking" and "never really the same" are
interesting.
Leaving aside the hysterical propaganda on both sides, it seems that
the life of a smoker goes something like this: In his (the masculine
includes the feminine) teenage years he finds that he suffers from
what the psychiatrists today would probably call mild generalized
anxiety and depression. He's nervous, stressed out,... at other times
somnolent when he should be awake,...or hyped-up when he should be
sleepy...etc. Of course no one said to him, "You should be on this and
that psychoactive medication," (and they didn't exist and probably
still don't to the extent necessary). He didn't even think of these as
a disease--and some still don't--but he found a substance for
self-medication: cigarettes. It provided cures for all of the above
wrapped up in one neat, relatively cheap little package, so he bought
it and used it. Meanwhile his peers, who didn't suffer from those
(mild, to be sure) anxiety and depression problems, took one puff--or
one cigarette-- and said, "Hey, this tastes nasty" and didn't try it
again.
When our budding smoker starts puffing away (now I'm on difficult
ground) he cures his depression and anxiety by supplying or increasing
the appropriate neurotransmitters but unfortunately he not only
supplies the missing stuff, he vastly overloads the system and the
body reacts by down-regulating the receptors, essentially killing off
large numbers of them. If he stopped smoking tomorrow he wouldn't
return to his pre-smoking state, he'd return to a state with huge gaps
in the chemicals at the synapse which of course causes the craving
associated with trying to stop.
Lung cancer and cardiovascular problems are just transient
side-effects (although the missing alveoli are permanent), having
nothing to do with the main problem: how to restore chemical balance
at the synapse. Do receptors re-grow? It appears no one knows but the
lifelong craving of ex-smokers seems to suggest that they don't. What
lifelong maintenance medication will restore the balance and be as
effective as smoking?
And let's not forget the reason for smoking in the first place: that
(probably genetic) depression and anxiety. How are you going to cure
the teenager so he will have no need of self-medication with
cigarettes?
Steve Harris
news:jfhv8u8smmo9h2csm...@4ax.com...
>
> Lung cancer and cardiovascular problems are just transient
> side-effects (although the missing alveoli are permanent), having
> nothing to do with the main problem: how to restore chemical balance
> at the synapse. Do receptors re-grow? It appears no one knows but the
> lifelong craving of ex-smokers seems to suggest that they don't.
I'm skeptical that they don't. We know receptors turn over normally. A lot
of the residual craving that remains with smokers is just memories of
pleasure-- no different than you craving for that once-loved junk food that
you can no longer eat because you're on a diet.
> And let's not forget the reason for smoking in the first place: that
> (probably genetic) depression and anxiety. How are you going to cure
> the teenager so he will have no need of self-medication with
> cigarettes?
I know, I know! Ritalin-SR !
SBH
sle...@scummyisp.com
><sle...@scummyISP.com> wrote in message
>news:jfhv8u8smmo9h2csm...@4ax.com...
>> Lung cancer and cardiovascular problems are just transient
>> side-effects (although the missing alveoli are permanent), having
>> nothing to do with the main problem: how to restore chemical balance
>> at the synapse. Do receptors re-grow? It appears no one knows but the
>> lifelong craving of ex-smokers seems to suggest that they don't.
>I'm skeptical that they don't. We know receptors turn over normally. A lot
>of the residual craving that remains with smokers is just memories of
>pleasure-- no different than you craving for that once-loved junk food that
>you can no longer eat because you're on a diet.
Can't be. Just like the teenager who rejects cigarettes because they
do nothing for him, if you can restore the chemical balance and remove
the original problem below, cigarettes will equally do nothing for the
lifelong smoker. IOW what was once a pleasurable sensation will now be
nothing or mildly distasteful. He might try it again but he'll stop
pretty quickly.
Same with your analogy of the dieter. If you eliminate the pleasure or
desire (I have no idea what you have to turn off or on; smoking is
much easier) he may remember a pleasurable experience in eating junk
food but when he restarts it will no longer give him pleasure and
he'll shortly stop.
>> And let's not forget the reason for smoking in the first place: that
>> (probably genetic) depression and anxiety. How are you going to cure
>> the teenager so he will have no need of self-medication with
>> cigarettes?
>I know, I know! Ritalin-SR !
I presume you're not serious. Unfortunately that lack of seriousness
in this area is something we have to work on.
Neil
<sbha...@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> wrote:
> "Neil" <m...@myisp.com> wrote in message
> news:110320021403141335%m...@myisp.com...
> > > You mean a cure for some cancers that is being surpressed? Possibly
> kept in
> > > the safe next to the 100 mpg carburetor the oil companies are
> surpressing,
> > > which is right next to the suite where Elvis stays when he's in town?
> >
> > Of course not. Why would they do such a thing for mere money and power?
> > You're still as clueless as ever Stevie-pooh. Some things never change.
>
>
> That's true. I see you're as gullible and paranoid as ever.
>
From you, That's a compliment. I see you're still the same ol' arrogant
front-man for the pharamceutical companies.
--
Ne...@sumeria.net <http://www.sumeria.net/>
"If the people let the government decide what foods they eat and what
medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as
the souls who live under tyranny." -- Thomas Jefferson
Steve Harris
> > That's true. I see you're as gullible and paranoid as ever.
> >
> From you, That's a compliment. I see you're still the same ol' arrogant
> front-man for the pharamceutical companies.
COMMENT:
Like I said, paranoid. Are you implying that somebody actually pays me to do
this?
SBH
Steve Harris
news:jc609uou3hask40dh...@4ax.com...
> >> And let's not forget the reason for smoking in the first place: that
> >> (probably genetic) depression and anxiety. How are you going to cure
> >> the teenager so he will have no need of self-medication with
> >> cigarettes?
>
> >I know, I know! Ritalin-SR !
>
> I presume you're not serious. Unfortunately that lack of seriousness
> in this area is something we have to work on.
ROFL. You're going to work on me to make me serious, are you?
No, there's the plan, Stan. Ritalin SR for all those kids who don't get the
grades their parents think they're smart enough to get, which is just about
all of them. Besides, the kids who are getting really good grades are all
using it for their supposed ADD, so it's arms race time at the mental
olympics. Except doping is allowed in this one. This will freak out a lot
of kids-- their anxiety and paranoia and borderline traits if they have any,
will all get worse! Watch-- with enough Ritalin, soon even the mildest will
begin to have paranoid thoughts about some stressful event. Zowie, PTSD.
So now, Paxil for all. And we need a Prozac, Jr.
The school nurse will be hoppin', baby, trying to dispense it all. That
which she's not using herself, that is.
And if they smoke, Junior Zyban cannot be far off. All we need's a new name
for it.
D. C. Sessions
> But isn't it true that all cells are replaced anew every 6 years or so?
> I know this is a bit of 'popular" knowledge and isn't exact, but doesn't
> this apply to those air sacs at least?
"Replaced" in the sense of division "children" of adjacent cells
taking the place of those which die. Some die, some live long
enough to divide, and the net result is a more-or-less stable
number. On the other hand, if you whack off your hand there
aren't any adjacent siblings to replace the missing parts; you
just get scar tissue over the wound.
Same with the lungs: minor losses are replaced, but if the damage
is near-complete there isn't enough left to build on.
--
| May I have the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, |
| the strength to change the things I cannot accept, and the |
| cunning to hide the bodies of those who got in my way. |
+------------- D. C. Sessions <d...@lumbercartel.com> -----------+
Ilena Rose
<sbha...@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> wrote:
**And if they smoke, Junior Zyban cannot be far off. All we need's a new name
**for it.
*
baby Wellbutrin
sle...@scummyisp.com
><sle...@scummyISP.com> wrote in message
>news:jc609uou3hask40dh...@4ax.com...
>> >I know, I know! Ritalin-SR !
>> I presume you're not serious. Unfortunately that lack of seriousness
>> in this area is something we have to work on.
>ROFL. You're going to work on me to make me serious, are you?
Oh, I'm sorry, I wasn't clear. That's the lack of seriousness of
people who don't believe in better living through pharmaceuticals,
particularly the psychoactive kind. And the "we" are those of us who
do. I'm not personally picking on you.
>No, there's the plan, Stan. Ritalin SR for all those kids who don't get the
>grades their parents think they're smart enough to get, which is just about
>all of them. Besides, the kids who are getting really good grades are all
>using it for their supposed ADD, so it's arms race time at the mental
>olympics. Except doping is allowed in this one. This will freak out a lot
>of kids-- their anxiety and paranoia and borderline traits if they have any,
>will all get worse! Watch-- with enough Ritalin, soon even the mildest will
>begin to have paranoid thoughts about some stressful event. Zowie, PTSD.
>So now, Paxil for all. And we need a Prozac, Jr.
All you're pointing out is our woefully poor knowledge of the CNS and
the brain. Besides I doubt Ritalin is the answer to the mild
depression and anxiety that are the main items relieved by smoking.
Steve Harris
<sle...@scummyISP.com> wrote in message
news:eep29uo09bg1o15t2...@4ax.com...
> All you're pointing out is our woefully poor knowledge of the CNS and
> the brain. Besides I doubt Ritalin is the answer to the mild
> depression and anxiety that are the main items relieved by smoking.
No, actually Wellbrutrin and Paxil are. <g>
Look, we don't know how these things work for sure. But we don't know how
smoking works, either. We simply know that they do. And that smoking is
incredibly bad for you. So do something (anything) else.
Neil
<sbha...@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> wrote:
> Neil" <m...@myisp.com> wrote in message
> news:130320022057525882%m...@myisp.com...
>
> > > That's true. I see you're as gullible and paranoid as ever.
> > >
> > From you, That's a compliment. I see you're still the same ol' arrogant
> > front-man for the pharamceutical companies.
>
>
> COMMENT:
>
> Like I said, paranoid. Are you implying that somebody actually pays me to do
> this?
>
If you're not being paid, then you are just an arrogant blind man who
has taken it upon himself to lead other blind people over the edge of
the abyss. My HIV+ friends who are Alive and Well after well over a
decade of refusing the drugs that you and your fellow drug pushers
recommend, and the fact that people, myself included, routinely
overcome cancer by using the alternative methods that you so despise
and condemn, pretty much say it all.
If i had listened to people like you, my ass would probably be in a
mason jar on my desk. Thank God i didn't listen and i'm still sitting
on it. Now, only my tumor is in the jar and it doesn't take nearly as
much space.
--
Ne...@suumeria.net <http://www.sumeria.net/>
Peter Bowditch
>If i had listened to people like you, my ass would probably be in a
>mason jar on my desk. Thank God i didn't listen and i'm still sitting
>on it. Now, only my tumor is in the jar and it doesn't take nearly as
>much space.
And how did the tumour get into the jar? Psychic surgery? Are you sure
it's not your brain in the jar?
-------------------------------------
Peter Bowditch pet...@ratbags.com
Mad - Quintessence of the Loon http://www.ratbags.com/loon
Bad - The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Sad - Full Canvas Jacket http://www.ratbags.com/ranters