Cancer Book

If you have cancer, then it is very likely you’re your doctor has
already or will soon advise you that the only viable treatments are
surgery, chemotherapy, and/or radiation. If you have a tumor, then
the doctor will try to cut or slash it out via surgery. After they cut
you, then they typically recommend chemo to try to kill any
remaining cancer cells with toxic poisons. And they will finish off
with radiation, to burn whatever cancer cells remain. This is why I,
and many others, refer to the “Big 3” protocol as “Slash, Poison, and
Burn.”
Now, with modern advancements in medicine, one would think that
the “Big 3” has improved the prognosis for cancer, right? In the year
2006, aren’t we curing a greater percentage of people with cancer
now compared to 1950? The answer is a resounding “NO!” As a
“Success of most chemotherapies is appalling ... there is
no scientific evidence for its ability to extend in any
appreciable way the lives of patients suffering from the
most common organic cancer...chemotherapy for
malignancies too advanced for surgery, which accounts
for 80% of all cancers, is a scientific wasteland.”
Dr. Ulrich Abel
Chapter 4 – Conventional Treatments Cancer – Step Outside the Box
68
matter of fact, the track record of the “Big 3” is so pathetic that the
Cancer Industry considers it a “success” if the survival rate of
patients who take the “Big 3” actually matches the survival rate of
patients who do nothing at all! Each of these treatments is invasive,
has devastating side effects, and treats only symptoms, not the cause
of the cancer.
The fact is that the “Big 3” can cause the spread or recurrence of
cancer. According to the New England Journal of Medicine,
“Secondary cancers are known complications of chemo therapy and
irradiation used to treat Hodgkin’s and non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas
and other primary cancers.” (NEJM, September 21, 1989). Dr. Lucian
Israel, a well-known oncologist, noted in his book Conquering
Cancer, that several studies have shown that cancer patients who
undergo radiation therapy are more likely to have their cancer
metastasize to other sites in their bodies. The radioactivity used to
kill cancer cells also triggers the process of DNA mutation that
creates new cancer cells of other types.
In his book The Cancer Industry, Dr. Ralph Moss reports that “In
1902, a German doctor recorded the first case of human cancer
caused by radiation: the tumor had appeared on the site of a chronic
ulceration caused by X-ray exposure. Experimental studies
performed in 1906 suggest that leukemia (cancer of the blood) could
be caused by exposure to the radioactive element radium. By 1911,
94 cases of radiation-induced cancer had been reported, more than
half of them (54) in doctors or technicians. By 1922, over 100
radiologists had died from X-ray-induced cancer.” According to Dr.
Moss, “I had a brain cancer specialist sit in my living room and tell
me that he would never take radiation if he had a brain tumor. And
I asked him, ‘but, do you send people for radiation?’ and he said, of
course. ‘I’d be drummed out of the hospital if I didn’t’.”
www.ralphmoss.com
“Complications following high-dose radiotherapy for breast cancer
are: fibrous, shrunken breasts, rib fractures, pleural and/or lung
scarring, nerve damage, scarring around the heart… suppression of
Chapter 4 – Conventional Treatments Cancer – Step Outside the Box
69
all blood cells, immune suppression,” according to Dr. Robert F.
Jones, writing in the Seattle Times on duly 27, 1980. He continues,
“many radiation complications do not occur for several years after
treatment, giving the therapist and the patient a false sense of
security for a year or two following therapy. The bone marrow, in
which blood cells are made, is largely obliterated in the field of
irradiation… This is an irreversible effect.” In his book
Understanding Cancer, Dr. John Laszlo, a former VP of research for
the ACS, indicates that when chemotherapy and radiation are given
together, secondary tumors are 25 times more likely to occur as the
normal rate.
Virtually all cancer surgery is unnecessary. According to Dr. Patrick
McGrady, “Even though it’s been proven conclusively that lymph
node excision after radiation does not prevent the spread of cervical
cancer, you will still see lymphadenectomies performed all over the
country routinely. This despite the fact that lymphadenectomies
make women feel so bad they wish they were dead-and are a proven
useless procedure.” (Townsend Letter for Doctors, June 1984, p. 99)
Surgery is oftentimes responsible for the spread of the cancer, since a
minute miscue or careless handling of tumor tissue by the surgeon
can literally spill millions of cancer cells into the cancer patient’s
bloodstream. Biopsies can also result in the spread of cancer, since
according to Dr. Donald Kelley in his book One Answer to Cancer,
“often while making a biopsy the malignant tumor is cut across,
which tends to spread or accelerate the growth. Needle biopsies can
accomplish the same tragic results.”
One of the problems is that we’re being duped by Big Medicine with
phony statistics, bad science, and fraudulent studies. According to
Webster Kehr, “The uselessness of surgery, chemotherapy and
radiation is hidden behind a maze of very sophisticated false and
misleading statistics, misleading definitions, meaningless concepts
and many other techniques.” www.cancertutor.com
Chapter 4 – Conventional Treatments Cancer – Step Outside the Box
70
A 1986 report in the New England Journal of Medicine assessed
progress against cancer in the U.S. during the years 1950 to 1982.
Despite progress against some rare forms of cancer, which account
for 1-2% of total deaths caused by the disease, the report found that
the overall death rate had increased substantially since 1950. “The
main conclusion we draw is that some 35 years of intense effort
focused largely on improving treatment must be judged a qualified
failure.” The report further concluded, “we are losing the war
against cancer.”
Statistics indicate that chemotherapy will cure about 3% (mainly
blood and lymph cancers). That’s right...only 3%. As a matter of
fact, chemotherapy is known to have 90% of it’s successes in certain
rare cancers. But what if you have cancer which is in the other 90%
group? Why is your oncologist still telling you to take
chemotherapy? When President Nixon declared war on cancer,
researchers were given access to billions of dollars of research
money earmarked for cancer drug research. If you are an M.D., you
better not challenge the status quo (i.e. the “Big 3”), because if you
do, then you are likely to have your funding pulled.
Case in point: in 1966, Dr. Irwin D. Bross and four colleagues
published a series of groundbreaking articles entitled “Is Toxicity
Really Necessary.” In these articles, they merely questioned whether
it was possible to find an alternative to chemotherapy and radiation,
since chemo and radiation are both so toxic. The result: they
promptly lost their government support for drug testing studies.
Chemotherapy is toxic, carcinogenic (causes cancer), destroys red
blood cells, devastates the immune system, and kills vital organs.
How toxic is chemotherapy? Think about it…your hair falls out,
your immune system is destroyed, you are constantly nauseated, you
get sick and vomit, you are constantly dizzy, and you have severe
headaches. Are these signs that maybe this stuff is poison and
doesn’t belong in your body? I’m no doctor, but this sure does seem
like a very strange way to “heal” someone. If I were a doctor and I
were trying to heal someone, but then I had them do something
Chapter 4 – Conventional Treatments Cancer – Step Outside the Box
71
which made their hair fall out and they started vomiting and it
looked like they were going to die, then I would probably think that
I was using the wrong protocol.
But that’s not what the conventional oncologist thinks. They think
that chemotherapy is the best thing since sliced bread and that they
are going to destroy the cancer tumor. In the end, if they are lucky,
the patient may still be alive after being legally poisoned. Sadly, the
fact is that cancer patients often die from the drugs themselves due
to their high toxicity. Most people who “die from cancer” really die
from the conventional treatments (like chemotherapy) long before
they would have actually died from the cancer itself. To put it
plainly, the treatment kills them before the cancer kills them. As a
matter of fact, the chemotherapy drug 5FU is sometimes referred to
by doctors as “5 feet under” because of its deleterious effects.
For most adult cancers, the typical best case scenario that the “Big 3”
provides is to buy a little time. In a worst case scenario, you will die
from the treatment rather than the disease. But don’t take it from
me, here’s what Dr. Allen Levin says about chemotherapy: “Most
cancer patients in this country die of chemotherapy. Chemotherapy
does not eliminate breast, colon, or lung cancers. This fact has been
documented for over a decade, yet doctors still use chemotherapy
for these tumors.” That’s right, the “Big 3” have actually been
shown to shorten life in many instances.
In his book, The Topic of Cancer: When the Killing Has to Stop,
Dick Richards cites a number of autopsy studies which have shown
that cancer patients actually died from conventional treatments
before the tumor had a chance to kill them. Just think about it.
Chemotherapy has always been developed from toxic poisonous
chemicals, right? So, there has always been a fine line between
administering a “therapeutic dose” and killing the cancer patient.
Some (many) doctors step over that line. In his book, When Healing
Becomes a Crime, Kenny Ausubel notes that in a trial on a
chemotherapy drug tested for leukemia, a whopping 42% of the
patients died directly from the toxicity of the chemotherapy drug!
Chapter 4 – Conventional Treatments Cancer – Step Outside the Box
72
Did you know that chemotherapy drugs were derived from the
nitrogen mustard gas experiments during World War I and World
War II? It was noticed that exposure to mustard gas caused
destruction of fast growing tissues, thus it was surmised that since
cancer grew quickly, these poisons could kill cancer tissue. Well,
they were right...exposure to these gases did kill cancerous tissue.
Make no mistake about it, chemotherapy and radiation do shrink the
size of tumors and they kill cancer cells. But is shrinking a tumor
equivalent to curing cancer? Is there a direct correlation? The
answer is “no.”
According to Dr. Ralph Moss, “If you can shrink the tumour 50% or
more for 28 days you have got the FDA’s definition of an active
drug. That is called a response rate, so you have a response..(but)
when you look to see if there is any life prolongation from taking
this treatment what you find is all kinds of hocus pocus and song
and dance about the disease free survival, and this and that. In the
end there is no proof that chemotherapy in the vast majority of cases
actually extends life, and this is the GREAT LIE about
chemotherapy, that somehow there is a correlation between
shrinking a tumour and extending the life of the patient.”
www.whale.to/cancer/quotes1.htm
Here are the facts. In 1942, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center
quietly began to treat breast cancer with these mustard gas
derivatives. No one was cured. Chemotherapy trials were also
conducted at Yale around 1943 where 160 patients were treated.
Again, no one was cured. But, since the chemotherapy did shrink
tumors, researchers were so excited that they proclaimed the
chemotherapy trials to be a “success.”
A person can undergo $100,000 worth of chemotherapy and live an
extra 6 months, and conventional medicine calls that a success!?!
The official position of Big Medicine is that the “Big 3” (specifically
chemotherapy) is the only treatment protocol that should be
available to sufferers of cancer, and that if you step “outside the box”
and find an alternative cancer treatment that actually works and
Chapter 4 – Conventional Treatments Cancer – Step Outside the Box
73
increases your lifespan by years or decades, then you are committing
some kind of crime. This is despicable, since there is no evidence
that chemotherapy increases overall lifespan at all. Period. And, yes,
there are mountains of evidence that chemotherapy, surgery, and
radiation increase the spread of cancer!
In a courageous letter to Dr. Frank Rauscher, his boss at the National
Cancer Institute, Dr. Dean Burk condemned the Institute’s policy of
continuing to endorse chemotherapy drugs when everyone knew
that they caused cancer. He argued: “Ironically, virtually all of the
chemotherapeutic anti-cancer agents now approved by the Food and
Drug Administration for use or testing in human cancer patients are
(1) highly or variously toxic at applied dosages; (2) markedly
immunosuppressive, that is, destructive of the patient’s native
resistance to a variety of diseases, including cancer; and (3) usually
highly carcinogenic [cancer causing].... These now well established
facts have been reported in numerous publications from the
National Cancer Institute itself, as well as from throughout the
United States and, indeed, the world” (Letter to Frank Rauscher,
dated April 20, 1973; Griffin, “Private Papers”).
In his book, Questioning Chemotherapy, Dr. Ralph Moss writes on
page 29, “The amount of toxic chemicals needed to kill every last
cancer cell was found to kill the patient long before it eliminated the
tumor.” Then, on page 40, he writes, “I remembered the story of a
celebrated Sloan Kettering chemotherapist who, when he found out
that he had advanced cancer, told his colleagues, ‘Do anything you
want - but no chemotherapy.’ It was an open secret that an official
of Sloan Kettering sent his mother to Germany for alternative
treatment..” On page 70, Dr. Moss writes, “Perhaps the strangest
thing about chemotherapy is that many of these drugs themselves
are carcinogenic. This may seem astonishing to the average reader –
that cancer-fighting drugs themselves cause caner. Yet this is an
undeniable fact.” I strongly urge you to read this book.
Dr. John Diamond, M.D., states “A study of over 10,000 patients
shows clearly that chemo’s supposedly strong track record with
Chapter 4 – Conventional Treatments Cancer – Step Outside the Box
74
Hodgkin’s disease (lymphoma) is actually a lie. Patients who
underwent chemo were 14 times more likely to develop leukemia
and 6 times more likely to develop cancers of the bones, joints, and
soft tissues than those patients who did not undergo chemotherapy
(NCI Journal 87:10).” www.whale.to/cancer/quotes1.htm. And the
March 21, 1996 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine
reported that “Children who are successfully treated for Hodgkin’s
disease are 18 times more likely later to develop secondary
malignant tumours. Girls face a 35 percent chance of developing
breast cancer by the time they are 40 – which is 75 times greater
than the average. The risk of leukemia increased markedly four
years after the ending of successful treatment, and reached a plateau
after 14 years, but the risk of developing solid tumours remained
high and approached 30 percent at 30 years.”
The McGill Cancer Center in Montreal, one of the largest and most
esteemed cancer treatment centers in the world, surveyed 79
oncologists to see how they would respond to a diagnosis of cancer.
The results will blow your mind. Are you sitting down? Of the 79
oncologists surveyed, 58 said that ALL chemotherapy programs were
unacceptable to them and their family members due to the fact that
the drugs don’t work and are toxic to one’s system (Philip Day,
Cancer: Why We’re Still Dying to Know the Truth).
In the addendum to the Second Edition of his book, The Persecution
and Trial of Gaston Naessens, Christopher Bird describes his
personal encounters with several physicians who were well aware
that they were treating patients with protocols that did not work.
“Thirteen of the doctors who called me were eager to know how
they could get access to treatments such as those devised by Gaston
Naessens for themselves, their wives, or their relatives to treat grave
cases of cancer with which they had become afflicted. In each case, I
interjected my own question: ‘Doctor, how come you’re not advising
yourself (or those close to you) to go the same prescription route
you’ve been recommending for so long to your patients?
Chemotherapy, or radiation, or the like?’ And each time, though
phrased slightly differently, the answer came back: “Because we
Chapter 4 – Conventional Treatments Cancer – Step Outside the Box
75
know it doesn’t work!” When I heard this answer, sometimes voiced
late at night, I wondered if I were living in a world gone medically
mad.” www.hbci.com/~wenonah/new/naessens.htm
In the 1980s, Dr. Ulrich Abel, a German epidemiologist, did a
comprehensive analysis of every major study and clinical trial of
chemotherapy that has ever been done. To insure that he didn’t
leave anyone out, he contacted over 350 medical centers worldwide
requesting them to furnish him with anything they had published
on the subject of cancer. By the time he published his report, it is
likely that he knew more about chemotherapy than any person in
the world.
The results were amazing! In his report, published in The Lancet,
August of 1991, Dr. Abel stated, “Success of most chemotherapies is
appalling...There is no scientific evidence for its ability to extend in
any appreciable way the lives of patients suffering from the most
common organic cancer...Chemotherapy for malignancies too
advanced for surgery, which accounts for 80% of all cancers, is a
scientific wasteland.” Of course, Big Medicine immediately attacked
Dr. Abel’s character since they couldn’t attack his science. This is
standard operating procedure for Big Medicine. Not surprisingly, no
mainstream media ever mentioned Abel’s comprehensive study: it
was totally buried.
Dr. Glenn Warner is a board certified oncologist and one of the most
highly qualified cancer specialist in the Seattle area. He uses
alternative treatments on his cancer patients with great success. He
has over 1,000 surviving cancer patients. On the treatment of cancer
in this country he said: “We have a multi-billion dollar industry that
is killing people, right and left, just for financial gain. Their idea of
research is to see whether two doses of this poison is better than
three doses of that poison.”
Dr. Alan C. Nixon, 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
Chapter 4 – Conventional Treatments Cancer – Step Outside the Box
76
evidence that chemotherapy does much, much more harm than
good.” Charles Mathe, French cancer specialist, states “If I
contracted cancer, I would never go to a standard cancer treatment
centre. Only cancer victims who live far from such centres have a
chance.” http://theanswertocancer.com/the_real_war.htm
And yet, day after day, year after year, the Cancer Industry
continues to put these toxic chemicals into the bodies of cancer
patients. And the patients let them do it, even volunteering for new
“guinea pig” studies, simply because someone with a degree from a
school of disease (also known as medical school) told them it was
their “only option.” And it costs lots of money for them to poison
the body of cancer patients, and the patients gladly pay it. Sadly,
some people will spend six figures a year poisoning their bodies
because their doctor told them to do it.
Manipulating the Terms
Is the media lying when they say that we are winning the war on
cancer? In a word, “yes,” but only because the Cancer Industry has
been lying to them. The Cancer Industry tells us that due to
advancements in chemotherapy, people are living longer. This is a
lie. They have been able to perpetuate this myth, and thus the
billions of dollars that pour into their coffers by manipulating the
data and the terms.
According to Dr. John Bailer, who spent 20 years on the staff of the
NCI and was editor of its journal, “the five year survival statistics of
the American Cancer Society are very misleading. They now count
things that are not cancer, and, because we are able to diagnose at an
earlier stage of the disease, patients falsely appear to live longer. Our
whole cancer research in the past 20 years has been a total failure.
More people over 30 are dying from cancer than ever before… More
women with mild or benign diseases are being included in
statistics and reported as being ‘cured.’ When government officials
point to survival figures and say they are winning the war against
Chapter 4 – Conventional Treatments Cancer – Step Outside the Box
77
cancer they are using those survival rates improperly.”
www.ghchealth.com/chemotherapy-quotes.html
Here is how G. Edward Griffin puts it in his book World Without
Cancer: “It is clear that the American Cancer Society – or at least
someone very high within it—is trying to give the American people
a good old-fashioned snow job. The truth of the matter is – ACS
statistics notwithstanding – orthodox medicine does not have
‘proven cancer cures,’ and what it does have is pitifully inadequate
considering the prestige it enjoys, the money it collects, and the
snobbish scorn it heaps upon those who do not wish to subscribe to
its treatments.”
Yes, the Cancer Industry uses snobbery, bigotry, intimidation, and
manipulation to keep cancer patients completely ignorant of the
truth concerning the “Big 3” and alternative treatments. As the old
saying goes, “He who defines the terms wins the argument.” Here is
how the Cancer Industry has been manipulating the data and redefining
the terms (i.e. lying to us) about the effects of the “Big 3”:
􀂾 The Cancer Industry has defined the term “cure” to apply to
a cancer patient who lives over 5 years from the date of
diagnosis. It does not mean “healed” nor does it mean “free
of cancer.” Due to improvements in cancer diagnosis, we are
now able to see a tumor months if not years earlier than we
could previously with sophisticated blood tests and imaging
equipment. As a result, patients are now living longer from
the point of diagnosis, since diagnosis happens earlier.
However, if a patient develops the same cancer again after
the period is up, or if they are disfigured by the disease or
treatment, or if they drop dead 2 days after the period is up,
they are still deemed to be “cured.”
􀂾 The Cancer Industry typically omits certain groups of people
from their statistics and includes certain groups based upon
what will make their statistics look more favorable for the
“Big 3.” That’s right. They choose the sample. For example,
lung cancer patients are typically excluded from their
Chapter 4 – Conventional Treatments Cancer – Step Outside the Box
78
statistics, despite the fact that lung cancer is the leading
cause of cancer death. And certain cancers like nonmelanoma
skin cancers are always included in their samples,
since 99% of non-melanoma skin cancer patients live over 5
years, so they increase the “cure” percentage. Fishy, huh?
􀂾 The Cancer Industry typically will remove a patient who
dies during a “Big 3” treatment protocol from the population
of the sample. What does this mean? It means that if there
are 10 patients on a chemotherapy protocol which is to last
60 days, and 9 of them die before the 60th day while only 1
patient makes it to the end of the treatment, then the 9 are
removed and the treatment is said to have a 100% cure
rate!!!
􀂾 Another trick the Cancer Industry uses in their statistics is to
ignore counting people who die from the effects of the “Big
3.” In other words, let’s say you have chosen chemotherapy,
and as a result of your newly compromised immune system,
you catch pneumonia and die. Well, did you know that your
death will likely not be counted as a death from cancer?
􀂾 Also, the Cancer Industry tells us that if a chemotherapy
drug shrinks the size of a tumor, then it must be considered
effective. But what does effective mean? Does it mean that
the patient will live longer? No. It has been well
documented that shrinkage of a tumor has little to do with a
longer survival rate.
Tumor Tizzy
Big Medicine is in a “tumor tizzy.” Most oncologists are so obsessed
with shrinking the size of a tumor that they miss the mark
completely. You see, chemotherapy does shrink tumors, that is true.
However, despite the fact that oncologists are successfully able to
shrink tumors, oftentimes the cancer patient still dies. But why? The
reason is the tumor size has nothing do to with curing cancer.
Webster Kehr is right on when he states, “Orthodox medicine, with
its focus on the highly profitable tumor, has brainwashed the public
Chapter 4 – Conventional Treatments Cancer – Step Outside the Box
79
into thinking that the tumor is the cancer. I have actually seen
orthodox web sites that say that tumors are made exclusively of
cancer cells. All of this is hogwash. A tumor cannot be made
exclusively of cancer cells any more than a house can be made
exclusively out of crude oil. Cancer cells CANNOT form tissue.
There is NO WAY a tumor can be made exclusively out of cancer
cells. Cancer cells reside in the tissue of the tumor. That is why they
do biopsies. Thus, if you kill the cancer cells in the tumor, the tumor
is nothing but a harmless piece of tissue!”
Mr. Kehr continues, “With alternative cancer treatments, little, if
any, attention is paid to the size of the tumor. If the tumor gets a
little bigger, for many types of cancer that is no big deal. It is the
cancer cells in the tissue of the tumor that are important, not the
tissue itself. But it is not even the cancer cells in the tissue of a
tumor that threatens the life of the patient...it is the SPREADING of
cancer that kills cancer patients. Nothing in orthodox
medicine deals with the spreading of the cancer.”
www.cancertutor.com/Other/ShrinkTumors.html
According to Dr. Philip Binzel, “The problem with many (not all)
Doctors and Oncologists in today’s society is that they have been
trained to be ‘tumor orientated’ ... For example, when a patient is
found to have a tumor, the only thing the doctor discusses with that
patient is what he intends to do about the tumor...no one ever asks
how the patient is doing. In my medical training, I remember well
seeing patients who were getting radiation and/or chemotherapy.
The tumor would get smaller and smaller, but the patient would be
getting sicker and sicker. At autopsy we would hear, ‘Isn’t that
marvelous! The tumor is gone!’ Yes, it was, but so was the patient.
How many millions of times are we going to have to repeat these
scenarios before we realize that we are treating the wrong thing?”
In his book Alive and Well, Dr. Binzel states that in primary cancer,
with only a few exceptions, the tumor is neither health endangering
nor life threatening. What is health endangering and life
threatening is the spread of cancer through the rest of the body.
Chapter 4 – Conventional Treatments Cancer – Step Outside the Box
80
There is nothing in surgery today that will prevent the spread of
cancer. There is nothing in chemotherapy or radiation that will
prevent the spread of cancer. How do we know? Just look at the
statistics. The survival time of a cancer patient today is no different
to what it was half a century ago. The only advancement in the last
50 years has been the improvement on ways to kill tumors via
chemo and radiation. What does all this mean? It means that “we are
treating the wrong thing!”
Is Your House on Fire?
Suppose you own a nice, comfortable, $300,000 house in the
country, but near a small city. While you have gone to the store
your house catches on fire. As you return home you see that two
rooms of your house are in flames and the fire is spreading. You
immediately call the fire department. Twenty minutes later three
fire trucks show up.
The men and women in the first fire truck pull out heavy suits and
axes and run to the house and start cutting down parts of the house
that have already burned. They furiously cut and cut and when they
have cut out about 10% of the parts of the house that have already
burned, they quit and go back to their fire truck.
You note that they did absolutely nothing to stop the spreading of
the fire. What they cut out wasn’t even burning and it certainly had
nothing to do with stopping the raging fire. You watch the men and
women in the second fire truck pull out a fire hose and started
spraying a powder on the fire. The amount of powder they were
spraying did not seem to you to be enough to put out the fire. But
you notice that while the powder is slowing down the spreading of
the fire, it is also severely damaging the parts of the house that are
not on fire.
Puzzled, you ask the fireman what the powder is. They say it is a
very toxic acid that is capable of putting the fire out, but they can’t
spray very much of it on the fire because if they did, the entire
Chapter 4 – Conventional Treatments Cancer – Step Outside the Box
81
house would be reduced to a pile of rubble by the acid. Thus, all
they can do is slow down the spreading of the fire, but they can’t
stop the spreading of the fire.
Even more puzzled, you ask them why they did not bring water in
their fire truck. They said that using water on a house fire is an old
“wives tale” and water is not effective. They state the government
regulatory agency, the Fire Development Administration (FDA) has
researched water and has declared that water is an “unproven”
method to put out house fires.
You silently mumble to yourself that there must be a huge
underground connection between the FDA and the chemical
companies. While you have been talking to the men and women in
the second truck, five men have jumped out of the third fire truck.
They ask you where the couch is in the living room. You point in
the general direction of the couch in the living room, which you
assume by now is on fire.
Each of them immediately pulls out a 30-06 caliber rifle and starts
shooting at the couch from where they are standing next to their fire
truck. You scream at them and ask them what they are doing. They
respond that they have been taught that couches are very bad to
have in a house during a fire, so they are trying to shoot the couch to
pieces. They comment: “We think we are doing some good.” You
say that even if the couch is helping spread the fire, that they are
blowing holes in the front and back of the house trying to shoot the
couch to pieces from outside the house.
While the spreading of the house fire did slow down because of the
toxic acids, within two hours you no longer have a house. The fire
men and women were quite proud that they slowed down the fire.
They tell you that your house lasted an extra hour because of their
work. The give each other “high fives,” get in their fire trucks, and
head back to the fire station. Between the fire, the acid and the
bullets, your house has been reduced to rubble. The cutting out of
the wood that had already burned, by the first fire truck, had
Chapter 4 – Conventional Treatments Cancer – Step Outside the Box
82
absolutely no affect on stopping the fire. In fact, nothing any of
them did stopped the spreading of the fire, it only slowed it down.
You are astonished at what you have seen.
You ponder why the “investigative journalists” have not jumped on
this situation. Then you realize how much the chemical companies
advertise on T.V. and you realize why the “investigative journalists”
have kept their mouths shut. A week later, as you drive by the fire
department, you notice that all of the cars in the parking lot are very
expensive cars. A month later you know why they are driving very
expensive cars. They have sent you a bill for their services: $100,000.
But they note in the bill that the house insurance company will pay
most of the bill. You are puzzled when you look at your house
insurance policy and realize the insurance company will not pay the
bill if the fire department uses water.
“Is Your House on Fire?” was written by Webster Kehr and it
brilliantly illustrates the sheer inadequacy of the “Big 3.” Mr. Kehr
hits the nail on the head when he allegorizes the ineffectiveness of
the “Big 3” as well as the utter greed which controls the Cancer
Industry. Of course, the first fire truck represents surgery to cut out
cancerous tumors, the second fire truck represents chemotherapy,
and the third fire truck represents radiation. Slash, Poison, and
Burn.
So to sum it up, despite the fact that the “Big 3” conventional cancer
treatments are toxic, immunosuppressive, and carcinogenic,
oncologists continue to prescribe this treatment protocol. But why?
Follow the money trail...follow the money. The “Big 3” are a multi-
BILLION dollar business. Sadly, if you have cancer and choose these
treatments, the odds indicate that you are going to die from
complications of your treatment before you have time to die from
your cancer.
Ironically, in a demented kind of way, I guess you could say that the
“Big 3” cancer treatments DO prevent many cancer patients from
dying from cancer………… they die from the “treatments” instead.
Chapter 4 – Conventional Treatments Cancer – Step Outside the Box
83
The Katie Wernecke Story
Katie Wernecke, a 13 year old girl, was diagnosed with Hodgkin’s
lymphoma (cancer of the lymph nodes) in January 2005. Her parents
took her to the emergency room with what they believed was
pneumonia, but it turned out to be much worse. Doctors persuaded
them that Katie needed chemotherapy, and they acquiesced.
However, doctors recommended radiation as well, but the
Wernecke’s refused. Katie is quoted as saying, “I don’t need
radiation treatment. And nobody asked me what I wanted. It’s my
body.”
In an effort to force the Werneckes to submit Katie to conventional
cancer treatments, the modern-day “governmental Gestapo” (Child
“Protective” Services) took Katie away from her parents in 2005,
after receiving a tip that Katie and her mother were hiding out at a
family ranch in order to avoid the radiation that doctors claimed she
needed to survive. Authorities promptly took Katie into custody and
arrested her mother on charges of interfering with child custody.
That’s right, the Texas government kidnapped a child from her
family in order to poison her, then they arrested her mother for
attempting to keep her child from being poisoned.
Her mother had to pay $50,000 bail to get out of jail. Imagine
that…$50,000 for protecting your own child! This is ludicrous! I
have heard of murderers who were out on less than $50,000 bail! In
addition to kidnapping her daughter, CPS placed her three sons in a
foster home. Attorneys for the Texas Department of Family and
Protective Services have stated in court that the Werneckes are
“medically neglectful” for refusing radiation. Apparently, these
attorneys are blissfully unaware of the irony of that statement.
Hello! Earth to Texas!
In late 2005, a Texas judge ruled that the Werneckes would be
“allowed” to take Katie out of state to consult with alternative cancer
doctors, but not before she underwent 5 more days of chemopoison
Chapter 4 – Conventional Treatments Cancer – Step Outside the Box
84
(err…I mean chemotherapy). Eventually, Katie was released from
her government sponsored prison and reunited with her family.
Fortunately, the chemotherapy did not kill Katie and she survived
despite this horrible cancer “treatment.” She is now undergoing
alternative cancer treatment. This story is a prime example of how
the Cancer Industry is out of control. It seems that we now live in a
frightening world where medical “professionals” are able to enlist
the help of government agencies in order to force people into toxic
medical “treatments.” This is nothing less than government
sponsored terror!
If you think that we live in a “free” society, think again. Right now,
under the direct supervision of ill-advised cancer “specialists,” a
judge can order CPS to kidnap your own kids from your own home,
haul them into hospitals, and drip chemical toxins into their veins!
Against your will and against the will of your kiddos! How can this
possibly be called a system of “health care?” I thought that this was
the land of the “free.” Apparently not!
Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, “this is not a system of health care
at all, folks. It’s a system of control. How do you control a
population? Drug them, from cradle to grave. Keep ‘em in a mental
haze. Bewilder them with television images. Bankrupt them with
medical bills. And if they don’t comply, arrest them at gunpoint and
terrorize their family to set an example. I call it state-sponsored
medical terrorism. In this case, the state is Texas. Personally, I think
that in a just society, the Texas Child Protective Services personnel
would be arrested and charged with kidnapping, and the oncologists
who took part in this cancer conspiracy would be tried in an
international court for crimes against humanity. Is it not a crime to
inject a child with deadly chemicals against her will and against her
parents’ will? If I loaded a syringe with the exact same chemicals
used on this girl, and injected them into your arm without your
permission, I would be (rightly) charged with attempted murder.”
www.newstarget.com/016387.html