Cancer: Why We're Still Dying to Know the Truth by Phillip Day.
Ilena Rose
REVIEW - Cancer: Why We're Still Dying to Know the Truth by Phillip Day.
Cancer: Why We're Still Dying to Know the Truth by Phillip Day.
Book description:
The explosive overview of the news the world has waited to hear. This book
exposes the ongoing establishment cover-up over Vitamin B17, the answer to
cancer and its prevention. It further details the astonishing track record
of amygdalin (laetrile) in its role within the combined cancer treatment
known as Metabolic Therapy. Whether you have cancer, or are exercising
prevention for you and your family, this is the book with big answers.
Full details on treatment and prevention options are given, including how
to obtain Metabolic Therapy kits and products.
STATEMENTS TYPIFYING THE REAL CANCER WAR
"Most of what you have heard over your lifetime about cancer treatments is
not the truth. At the very least, you have received an incomplete picture.
If you believe the propaganda you have been fed and you develop cancer, it
can cost you your life." John Diamond MD, author
"To the cancer establishment, a cancer patient is a profit center. The
actual clinical and scientific evidence does not support the claims of the
cancer industry. Conventional cancer treatments are in place as the law of
the land because they pay, not heal, the best. Decades of the
politics-of-cancer-as-usual have kept you from knowing this, and will
continue to do so unless you wake up to their reality." - Lee Cowden MD,
author
"...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." - Alan C Nixon, PhD, former president of the
American Chemical Society
"...no disseminated neoplasm (cancer) incurable in 1975 is curable
today... Many medical oncologists recommend chemotherapy for virtually any
tumor, with a hopefulness undiscouraged by almost invariable failure." -
oncologist Albert Braverman MD
"In the end, there is no proof that chemotherapy in the vast majority of
cases actually extends life. This is the GREAT LIE about chemotherapy,
that somehow there is a correlation between shrinking a tumor and
extending the life of a patient." Dr Ralph Moss, former Assistant
Director of Public Relations at leading American cancer research facility
Memorial Sloan Kettering, NY
"If I contracted cancer, I would never go to a standard cancer treatment
centre. Cancer victims who live far from such centres have a chance." -
Professor Charles Mathe, French cancer specialist
Radio host Laurie Lee: "So this is verified, that laetrile [B17] can have
this positive effect?"
Dr Ralph Moss: "We were finding this and yet we in Public Affairs were
told to issue statements to the exact opposite of what we were finding
scientifically."
See also:
Health Wars: Why Is Our Technology Killing Us? by Phillip Day
Plague, Pestilence, and the Pursuit of Power by Steven Ransom
Brandon Stahl
You use quotes from a handful of people who represent the overwhelming
minority view. When a patient is sick with lung cancer, has an
estimated 6-12 months to live, but can has minimal function due to
overwhelming shortness of breath followed by life threatening recurrent
pneumonias, the patient almost always *wants* chemotherapy (and
radiation therapy if possible). Cancer patients often want treatment in
situations that even the most caring of doctors will have to say "no" as
the risks far outweigh the potential benefits. Many many times,
chemotherapy is given to very sick, terminal patients lying in a
hospital bed with a poor performance status. Some weeks later that same
patient may very well be seen in an outpatient clinic sporting their new
wig having finally taken that roadtrip to California they've always
dreamed. Sometimes the treatment is more than the patient can tolerate,
absolutely. Patients at the end of the road more often than not - by a
large margin - opt to roll those dice. When they refuse treatment, they
inevitably follow a predictable downward slide, remain bedridden in the
hospital for weeks maybe months, finally being transferred to a comfort
care facility. There may be no vast difference in the lifespans of
these patients, but by and large medical therapy is very often able to
offer a dying person enough comfort and function so that they may live
out their final days on this earth as best they can.
Just this morning (I'm on the Heme/Onc service at a Boston Hospital) we
discharged a patient lung cancer. He has less than 6 months to live in
all likelihood. He's on a chemo course that enables him several weeks
in between treatments to "do his thing". He's a Nigerian man who has
not seen his wife or children in years. When he came to our hospital,
it looked like he may never see them again. Today, however, we sent him
off and any old Joe Schmoe bumping into him on the street would have
thought he just won the lottery, not got discharged from a hospital with
a terminal diagnosis.
How dare you or the author of the book you present below attempt to deny
these patients this little bit of life that they are often able to eek
out before eventually succumbing to their death. How crass, how rude,
how heartless, how *ignorant* of you make such statements.
People like you, Ilena, make me ill.
Brandon Stahl
I forgot to mention, and it's worth the repost, that he arranged a visit
home for a couple of weeks during his stay in the hospital to be
reunited with his family one last time. You can't put a pricetag on
that.
Ilena Rose
another who thinks he gets to decide what others read ...
In article <3B8ED8AE...@bu.edu>, Brandon Stahl <bst...@bu.edu> fussed
& fumed...
**How dare you or the author of the book you present below attempt to deny
**these patients this little bit of life that they are often able to eek
**out before eventually succumbing to their death. How crass, how rude,
**how heartless, how *ignorant* of you make such statements.
**
**People like you, Ilena, make me ill.
**
**
**Ilena Rose wrote:
**>
**> http://www.mapcruzin.com/rev_cancer.htm
**>
**> REVIEW - Cancer: Why We're Still Dying to Know the Truth by Phillip Day.
**>
**> Cancer: Why We're Still Dying to Know the Truth by Phillip Day.
**>
**> Book description:
**>
**> The explosive overview of the news the world has waited to hear. This book
**> exposes the ongoing establishment cover-up over Vitamin B17, the answer to
**> cancer and its prevention. It further details the astonishing track record
**> of amygdalin (laetrile) in its role within the combined cancer treatment
**> known as Metabolic Therapy. Whether you have cancer, or are exercising
**> prevention for you and your family, this is the book with big answers.
**> Full details on treatment and prevention options are given, including how
**> to obtain Metabolic Therapy kits and products.
**>
**> STATEMENTS TYPIFYING THE REAL CANCER WAR
**>
**> "Most of what you have heard over your lifetime about cancer treatments is
**> not the truth. At the very least, you have received an incomplete picture.
**> If you believe the propaganda you have been fed and you develop cancer, it
**> can cost you your life." John Diamond MD, author
**>
**> "To the cancer establishment, a cancer patient is a profit center. The
**> actual clinical and scientific evidence does not support the claims of the
**> cancer industry. Conventional cancer treatments are in place as the law of
**> the land because they pay, not heal, the best. Decades of the
**> politics-of-cancer-as-usual have kept you from knowing this, and will
**> continue to do so unless you wake up to their reality." - Lee Cowden MD,
**> author
**>
**> "...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." - Alan C Nixon, PhD, former president of the
**> American Chemical Society
**>
**> "...no disseminated neoplasm (cancer) incurable in 1975 is curable
**> today... Many medical oncologists recommend chemotherapy for virtually any
**> tumor, with a hopefulness undiscouraged by almost invariable failure." -
**> oncologist Albert Braverman MD
**>
**> "In the end, there is no proof that chemotherapy in the vast majority of
**> cases actually extends life. This is the GREAT LIE about chemotherapy,
**> that somehow there is a correlation between shrinking a tumor and
**> extending the life of a patient." Dr Ralph Moss, former Assistant
**> Director of Public Relations at leading American cancer research facility
**> Memorial Sloan Kettering, NY
**>
**> "If I contracted cancer, I would never go to a standard cancer treatment
**> centre. Cancer victims who live far from such centres have a chance." -
**> Professor Charles Mathe, French cancer specialist
**>
**> Radio host Laurie Lee: "So this is verified, that laetrile [B17] can have
**> this positive effect?"
**>
**> Dr Ralph Moss: "We were finding this and yet we in Public Affairs were
**> told to issue statements to the exact opposite of what we were finding
**> scientifically."
**>
**> See also:
**> Health Wars: Why Is Our Technology Killing Us? by Phillip Day
**> Plague, Pestilence, and the Pursuit of Power by Steven Ransom
Ilena Rose
**I forgot to mention, and it's worth the repost, that he arranged a visit
**home for a couple of weeks during his stay in the hospital to be
**reunited with his family one last time. You can't put a pricetag on
**that.
everyone deserves to make their own choices ... based on all available
info ... not just what you decide ...
George Conklin
>You should be truly ashamed of yourself.
>
>You use quotes from a handful of people who represent the overwhelming
>minority view. When a patient is sick with lung cancer, has an
>estimated 6-12 months to live, but can has minimal function due to
>overwhelming shortness of breath followed by life threatening recurrent
>pneumonias, the patient almost always *wants* chemotherapy (and
>radiation therapy if possible). Cancer patients often want treatment in
>situations that even the most caring of doctors will have to say "no" as
>the risks far outweigh the potential benefits.
My mother had to call off the doctor when he wanted to give her
more and more and more chemo for a terminal lung cancer. He was
the one who wanted to keep on and on and on. My wife, a nurse,
was with my mother when she told to doctor 'enough.' He was
upset.
But that is not the real issue. The war on cancer so far has
been a real failure. However, with new medications coming along,
the war may be significantly changed in the next 5 years. But so
far we have been lied to constantly.
``:wq
`
--
# If HMOs ran the post office, 44.3 million Americans would get no mail. #
# Phono FAQ: http://www.pagesz.net/~henryj/phono.htm. #
# Support Medicare for All Ages. Urban Myth FAQ under development. #
# Support Cygnet Horns for Edison Firesides-george conklin, KB4NCI #
Brandon Stahl
callousness.
--
This message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of
the designated recipient(s) named above. If you are not the intended
recipient of this message you are hereby notified that any review,
dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly
prohibited.
Brandon Stahl
The doctor does not decide to institute chemotherapy. Only the patient
can do that.
Brandon Stahl
George Conklin wrote:
>
> In article <3B8ED8AE...@bu.edu>, Brandon Stahl <bst...@bu.edu> wrote:
> >You should be truly ashamed of yourself.
> >
> >You use quotes from a handful of people who represent the overwhelming
> >minority view. When a patient is sick with lung cancer, has an
> >estimated 6-12 months to live, but can has minimal function due to
> >overwhelming shortness of breath followed by life threatening recurrent
> >pneumonias, the patient almost always *wants* chemotherapy (and
> >radiation therapy if possible). Cancer patients often want treatment in
> >situations that even the most caring of doctors will have to say "no" as
> >the risks far outweigh the potential benefits.
>
> My mother had to call off the doctor when he wanted to give her
> more and more and more chemo for a terminal lung cancer. He was
> the one who wanted to keep on and on and on. My wife, a nurse,
> was with my mother when she told to doctor 'enough.' He was
> upset.
>
> But that is not the real issue. The war on cancer so far has
> been a real failure. However, with new medications coming along,
> the war may be significantly changed in the next 5 years. But so
> far we have been lied to constantly.
I know not what lies you speak of. There are good new
chemotherapeuticals on the horizon, but nothing likely to wipe out
"cancer". Your mother is a perfect illustration of freedom of choice.
If a person does not want a particular treatment, they need only to say
so. At that point nothing can be done to force that issue, as with your
mother. There is no denying that doctors (as well as nurses and very
often family members or even the patients themselves) can get over
exuberant about treating when things are perhaps best left alone. For
oncologists, where to draw that line... that is, where to recommend
treatment and where to recommend the cessation of treatment, seems to be
a very individualized, doctor-patient issue that evolves over time, with
younger doctors often seeking the advice of their seniors for practical
clinical experience in similar matters.
Rich Andrews
I can attest to that statement first hand!
rich
--
"The power of accurate observation is called cynicism
by those who have not got it."
- George Bernard Shaw
Bill Ross
Ilena Rose wrote:
> another who thinks he gets to decide what others read ...
>
I thought that was your job, Ilena, judging from the volume of stuff you post and
cross-post for others to read. Brandon takes issue with something you post, that
you probably don't know much about anyway, and you try to make him seem like a bad
guy. I thought his posting was excellent.
Chemotherapy has its place, as someone like advanced cancer sufferer and Tour De
France winner Lance Armstrong would surely agree. I don't know how well it
extends lives, but even Dr. Ralph Moss (who you quoted, and is a doctor of what,
please?) acknowledges that chemo has a place in medicine. Palliative care is very
important in cancer treatment, and I wonder if you even know what the word
means. --Bill Ross
fred & michele
is, that is their choice. If they choose to do nothing, also their choice.
The only concern we should have is whether or not the patient is basing
their decision on having all the information available, the truth.
While many patients have been told by their doctors that treatment won't
cure them, they want to extend their lives as long as possible with the
highest quality of life. I've seen a "hopelessly terminal" patient undergo
a round of chemo in order to be here long enough to attend her child's
wedding. She died 12 days afterwards, but her daughter will always remember
the wonderful time they had that day & the pictures of her smiling mom at
the event showed her joy too. Surgery helped a patient of mine keep his
promise to his wife, taking her to Europe for the honeymoon they never had
28 years ago while one gentleman I worked with underwent chemo to be here to
see the birth of his first grandchild. All good reasons. These folks
weren't under any illusions they would be cured, they just wanted a bit more
time to tie up some loose ends. Treating their cancer allowed them that
little bit of time & it was a wonderful thing.
I've also seen people who chose not to do anything to treat their cancer.
While some of them might have done better with treatment (longer life, less
disability, etc.) they exercised their right to make their own decisions
about their health care & their lives. As long as patients are given the
facts (including the unpleasant ones), the decision should be theirs.
Perhaps cancer won't be "cured" in the near future, but instead "managed"
much like diabetes & other serious chronic conditions. For example, chemo
or surgery may allow a person to live a normal life for a few years then
it's time for more. Fun? Of course not. But if you get a decent life in
between having to treat the disease, & the treatments let you live 20 years
more than without them, it could be a viable choice for many.
Michele
Herman Rubin
>Ilena Rose wrote:
I doubt that this is the case. The patient can accept or
reject the physician's decision to do so. If the patient
can decide, some appropriate party must be willing to go
along with it.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
hru...@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
Peter Corona
You are right, Michele. I can't agree with you more. The same applies
to all the treatments for cancer. It's their choice.
Pete
Brandon Stahl
Bill Ross wrote:
>
> Ilena Rose wrote:
>
> > another who thinks he gets to decide what others read ...
> >
>
> I thought that was your job, Ilena, judging from the volume of stuff you post and
> cross-post for others to read. Brandon takes issue with something you post, that
> you probably don't know much about anyway, and you try to make him seem like a bad
> guy. I thought his posting was excellent.
Many thanks. Working so closely with people in such dire situations is
a unique experience indeed. And a very valuable one for the medical
community to have shared in at some point. I sense Ilena is more
interested in stirring controversy than how people live their lives - or
die their deaths.
--
Brandon Stahl
Herman Rubin wrote:
>
> In article <3B8EEF8B...@bu.edu>, Brandon Stahl <bst...@bu.edu> wrote:
>
> >Ilena Rose wrote:
>
> >> In article <3B8ED9E1...@bu.edu>, Brandon Stahl <bst...@bu.edu> wrote:
>
> >> **I forgot to mention, and it's worth the repost, that he arranged a visit
> >> **home for a couple of weeks during his stay in the hospital to be
> >> **reunited with his family one last time. You can't put a pricetag on
> >> **that.
>
> >> everyone deserves to make their own choices ... based on all available
> >> info ... not just what you decide ...
>
> >The doctor does not decide to institute chemotherapy. Only the patient
> >can do that.
>
> I doubt that this is the case.
Doubt the facts all you like Herman. If you had a terminal cancer and
you did not want treatment, are you saying you will be strapped down for
it?
> The patient can accept or
> reject the physician's decision to do so. If the patient
> can decide, some appropriate party must be willing to go
> along with it.
again, are you saying patients are literally forced into treatments they
do not want?
Orac
wrote:
> I'll take the brevity of your response as an acknowledgment of your
> callousness.
I don't know if I'd take it that way. I certainly would take it as
evidence that she has nothing more of value to say regarding the book,
once she posted the blurb for it.
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"
Orac
wrote:
Indeed. I know oncologists who on occasion have had to actively dissuade
patients from taking chemotherapy that the oncologist knows won't help
much (if at all) and will cause nasty side effects.
George Conklin
>
>
>George Conklin wrote:
>>
>> In article <3B8ED8AE...@bu.edu>, Brandon Stahl <bst...@bu.edu> wrote:
>> >You should be truly ashamed of yourself.
>> >
>> >You use quotes from a handful of people who represent the overwhelming
>> >minority view. When a patient is sick with lung cancer, has an
>> >estimated 6-12 months to live, but can has minimal function due to
>> >overwhelming shortness of breath followed by life threatening recurrent
>> >pneumonias, the patient almost always *wants* chemotherapy (and
>> >radiation therapy if possible). Cancer patients often want treatment in
>> >situations that even the most caring of doctors will have to say "no" as
>> >the risks far outweigh the potential benefits.
>>
>> My mother had to call off the doctor when he wanted to give her
>> more and more and more chemo for a terminal lung cancer. He was
>> the one who wanted to keep on and on and on. My wife, a nurse,
>> was with my mother when she told to doctor 'enough.' He was
>> upset.
>>
>> But that is not the real issue. The war on cancer so far has
>> been a real failure. However, with new medications coming along,
>> the war may be significantly changed in the next 5 years. But so
>> far we have been lied to constantly.
>
>I know not what lies you speak of. There are good new
>chemotherapeuticals on the horizon
Possibly, but we have heard this now for 40 years and you know
the progress....basically zilch. But these new drugs will not
come from practicing physicians, but from real scientists working
on a salary and who mostly are NOT physicians, like you want to
be. If you were more intelligent, you would become a real
scientist too.
Kristofer D. Dale
> Possibly, but we have heard this now for 40 years and you know
> the progress....basically zilch. But these new drugs will not
> come from practicing physicians, but from real scientists working
> on a salary and who mostly are NOT physicians, like you want to
> be. If you were more intelligent, you would become a real
> scientist too.
Judging from Galen Knight's experience, I wouldn't bother. The main
problem can be likened to getting good seats at a sports event. There is
nothing democratic about it; if you can't pay the outrageous price, you
aren't going to see any ringside action. Marketplace greed vs.
competition dynamics do not result in "excellence" either, so it is not
surprising that we have created such a profoundly mediocre world.
Medicine has not been immune to this corruption, and the the
opportunities for a "real" scientist are as bleak here as elsewhere.
Goons are running the show from behind the scenes, and anyone showing
even a remote ability to think independantly and critically is anathema
to these power brokers who are constantly running the oil-tanker of
technocracy aground with disastrous effect on the environment. It is
popular, even necessary I suppose, to ignore the overlying culture when
discussing medicine, it has become yet another abstraction that answers
only to market forces, allowing those who can afford the most expensive
seats to dictate what treatments and practices are ultimately
acceptable. If research doesn't tailor-fit this tunnel vision approach,
it will be ignored and suppressed using any and every means available.
At some point, after being required to go through the thankless process
of acquiring the knowledge, logic skills, and tenets of the scientific
method, you will be forced to renounce same so you can pose as an
authority for monied interests, or you will be subject to economic
terrorism, legal harrassment, public scorn and ridicule, and perhaps
even authoritarian denial of personal liberty. Given the choice between
a "career" as a corporate toad or social pariah, why bother? ;^]
--
_o Kristofer Dale,
_ \<,_ ragged individualist,
_____( )/ ( )_____ statistic at large...
p.s. Learn and live, http://www.vitaletherapeutics.org
George Conklin
Except for one thing....cancer medicine would be a blockbuster
drug if even one specific cancer were targeted. The problem
would come if everyone require(-s -ed) a custom drug mixture.
That would require complete reorganization of the
medical-industrial complex.
Brandon Stahl
Well, I guess I'll have to just accept my lowly level of intelligence,
as so well assessed by the local doctor hater, and move on with my
pathetic life, hoping truly smart people will one day put me out of
business. In the meantime, George, we morons will aspire to be as
intelligent as you, the wannabe.
Kristofer D. Dale
> Except for one thing....cancer medicine would be a blockbuster
> drug if even one specific cancer were targeted. The problem
> would come if everyone require(-s -ed) a custom drug mixture.
> That would require complete reorganization of the
> medical-industrial complex.
Let me elaborate. Galen Knight is principal inventor of the vitaletheine
modulators, the most potent, chemically-defined immune stimulants ever
described in scientific literature. Testing produced spectacular results
in animal models, and the work was published in Cancer Research, and
subsequently awarded patents and licensed through UNM for development.
So what has he been doing with himself in the decade following his
breakthrough research? Preventing the university-sanctioned theft of his
intellectual property by a corrupt licensee in a profound violation of
public trust. Clearly, the real winnners in this situation are the
social parasites- lawyers, administrators, judges, expert witnesses and
the like who profit directly from such misdeeds. The public that helped
fund this research and the inventors who labored mightily to produce the
exceptional results have received zilch to date in the way of
compensation OR life-saving non-toxic therapies, and the outcome is
still uncertain after a two-year legal battle in which the inventors
Knight and Scallen defended themselves pro se, serving as their own
lawyers, expert witnesses, and legal researchers, at their own expense.
The judge has not handed down his decision yet, a month after trial.
This is what one can expect if one has integrity and ingenuity and seeks
to work within the system to improve the common lot. To reiterate, why
bother? ;^]
Media coverage: http://www.abqtrib.com/cancer