Death by medicine
Licensed to kill - facts the drug firms conceal  
vaccinations and immunization
The cure for cancer was covered up
The Third Element of the Blood
pH Values of Various Foods 
LAginine ver Aspirin
New study puts hospital error death rate at twice IOM's total
Quackwatch and the Quackery of
Conventional Medicine
A Psychological / Spiritual Approach To Cancer
Cancer Loves Sugar
Chemotherapy quotes
On the Science of Essential Nutrients
Acupuncture Shown to Relieve Post-Op Nausea -Study
The life of Linus Pauling
Food Aditives
How and When to Be Your Own Doctor
The Analysis of Disease States:
Helping the Body Recover
The Nature and Cause of Disease
Cancer: Causes, Prevention and Treatment
../articles by Dr. H.A. Sartori
Metabolic Imbalances
Hetero compounds sorted by chemical formula
The Hidden Hazards of Microwave Cooking

"In summoning even the wisest of physicians to our aid, it is
probable that he is relying upon a scientific 'truth', the error
of which will become obvious in just a few years' time." Marcel
21st century medicine boasts a number of treatments that are actually
very dangerous to human health, none more so than for cancer.
May this short report reach the many thousands of people currently
undergoing conventional cancer treatment.
May it also reach the many thousands of doctors, physicians, nurses
and carers who every day, are innocently inflicting only serious
harm in the name of conventional cancer care.
Let the countdown begin.
Let there soon be an end to...
Death by Doctoring
Cancer: the good, the bad and the ugly
Steven Ransom
Credence Publications
Every year in the UK, 200,000 people are diagnosed with cancer and
152,500 people die. [1] In the US, the annual death rate for this
disease is approximately 547,000. [2] These deaths are recorded as
cancer deaths, but how many of these deaths are really attributable
to the disease itself? How many deaths should in fact be recorded
as death by doctoring? When we consider that conventional treatment
consists almost entirely of radiation, chemotherapy and the long-term
application of toxic pharmaceuticals, treatments which are all well
known for their life-threatening side-effects, then the question
becomes all the more legitimate. On chemotherapy for instance, note
the following:
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. Allen Levin, MD UCSF The Healing of Cancer,
Marcus Books, 1990
We examine the much-publicised story of UK media personality, the
late John Diamond, who opted for conventional treatment. What does
his story tell us? John was known for his critical attitude towards
many of the more popular alternative therapies. We look at some
aspects of the alternative approach and ask if his criticisms were
entirely undeserved. We hear from those within the cancer establishment
itself who cite the conventional cut, burn and dissolve techniques
as ugly and inhumane and from those who seriously question the
amounts of money being invested in conventional cancer today given
the pitifully low recovery rate. In the UK alone, 2.8billion a year
is spent in the conventional cancer emporium. Thats roughly 6,800,000
a day. US spending on cancer is ten times higher.
We also hear from those who defied conventional wisdom and opted
for non-toxic, non-conventional cancer treatments, with remarkable
results. And no, we are not talking dolphin or pyramid therapy.
From the known range of anti-cancer treatments available, this story
focuses on the naturally occurring Vitamin B17, Vitamin C and the
supporting role of nutrition. Vitamin B17 in particular has been
attracting a great deal of attention recently, despite the concerted
efforts of the world-wide cancer establishment to suppress or distort
all the positive reporting on this vitamin.
But should we find this so surprising? After all, its no secret
that with global spending on conventional cancer running into the
hundreds of billions of pounds and dollars annually, any news of a
successful anti-cancer treatment extracted from the simple apricot
kernel could do some serious damage to the wealth of the mighty
Cancer Inc.
But first, by way of introduction to the subject of death by
doctoring, we travel back a few hundred years, to the bedside of
King Charles II, where fourteen of the highest physicians in the
land are earnestly reviving the king from a stroke.
King Charles II, 1685
Curiously, his strength seemed to wane
The king was bled to the extent of a pint from a vein in his right
arm. Next, his shoulder was cut into and the incised area was sucked
of an additional 8oz of blood. An emetic and a purgative were
administered followed by a second purgative followed by an enema
containing antimone, sacred bitters, rock salt, mallow leaves,
violets, beetroot, camomile flowers, fennel seeds, linseed, cinnamon,
cardamom seed, saffron, cochineal and aloes. The kings scalp was
shaved and a blister raised. A sneezing powder of hellebore was
administered. A plaster of burgundy pitch and pigeon dung was applied
to the feet. Medicaments included melon seeds, manna, slippery-elm,
black cherry water, lime flowers, lily of the valley, peony, lavender,
and dissolved pearls. As he grew worse, forty drops of extract of
human skull were administered, followed by a rallying dose of
Raleighs antidote. Finally Bezoar Stone was given. Curiously, his
Majestys strength seemed to wane after all these interventions and
as the end of his life seemed imminent, his doctors tried a last
ditch attempt by forcing more Raleighs mixture, pearl julep and
ammonia down the dying Kings throat. Further treatment was rendered
more difficult by the kings death. [3]
We can be sure that the physicians gathered around the Kings bed
were all leaders in their particular field - royalty and presidents
do not settle for anything less. But as Proust observed, with
hindsight, we can now see the hideous error of their therapeutics.
Today, the skull-drops, the ammonia and the pigeon dung have long
gone, but what will we say in a few years time when we look back
on the highly respected cancer therapeutics of 2002? Will we dare
to venture that there is nothing new under the sun?
John Diamond, 2001
Have we really progressed much further?
Hes been poisoned, blasted, had bits lopped off him, been in
remission, felt lumps grow again, been given shreds of hope, had
hope removed. Nicci Gerrard, Sunday Observer, 14.5.2001
Many thousands of people were touched by John Diamonds regular Times
newspaper column, giving stark and brutal insight into living with
throat cancer. In a witty and very down-to-earth manner, Johns
remarkable column explored numerous life-with-cancer issues, including
the ups and considerably more downs in body and mind during radiation
treatment, the effects of his illness upon the wider family, the
rediscovery of everyday wonders previously taken for granted and
his distaste for numerous cancer clichs such as brave John and
staying positive, replying, I am not brave. I did not choose cancer.
I am just me, dealing with it. and Whenever somebody told me how
good a positive attitude would be for me, what they really meant
was how much easier a positive attitude would make it for them. He
was also well-known for his castigation of almost all non-orthodox
treatments and for his willingness to submit to all that the medical
orthodoxy had to offer a service that even he, a conventional
advocate, had variously described as pay-as-you-bleed and surgical
For me, the most memorable images of John were captured in the BBCs
Inside Story a television programme that followed John during a
year of treatment, showing him clearly suffering. An operation on
Johns throat caused him to lose his voice, which as a popular
broadcaster was a serious blow. Later, through surgery and radiation
treatment, he would lose most of his tongue and with it, all sense
of taste and the ability to eat properly - a double whammy, given
that he was married to TV super-cook Nigella Lawson.
In his extraordinary book C: Because Cowards get Cancer Too (which
I could not put down) he wrote: He who didnt realize what a boon
an unimpaired voice was, who ate his food without stopping to think
about its remarkable flavour, who was criminally profligate with
words, who took his wife and children and friends for granted - in
short, he who didnt know he was living. [4]
John died in March 2001, aged 47, after having suffered dreadfully
for four years, In his death, he joined sports presenter Helen
Rollason, Bill Compo Owen, Ian Dury, Roy Castle, Cardinal Basil
Hume, Linda McCartney and, most recently, ex-Beatle George Harrison,
plus 152,500 others in the UK who succumb annually to the cancer
ordeal. Kate Law of the Cancer Research Campaign said that Johns
story helped to bring cancer out of the closet in Britain. Johns
writings certainly brought home the ugliness of conventional
treatment. But the more informed in the cancer debate who have read
Johns columns and book will have recognised that Johns writings,
brilliant though they were, did not bring out the full story of
cancer at all.
Fraught with risks and side-effects
Consider the following statement from cancer specialist, Professor
Charles Mathe, who declared: 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. [5]
Walter Last, writing in The Ecologist, reported recently: After
analysing cancer survival statistics for several decades, Dr Hardin
Jones, Professor at the University of California, concluded ...patients
are as well, or better off untreated. Jones disturbing assessment
has never been refuted. [6]
Or what about this?
Many medical oncologists recommend chemotherapy for virtually any
tumor, with a hopefulness undiscouraged by almost invariable failure.-
Albert Braverman MD 1991 Lancet 1991 337 p901 Medical Oncology in
the 90s
Or this?
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. - Allen Levin, MD UCSF The Healing of Cancer
or even this? Despite widespread use of chemotherapies, breast
cancer mortality has not changed in the last 70 years- Thomas Dao,
MD NEJM Mar 1975 292 p 707
Chemotherapy is an invasive and toxic treatment able supposedly to
eliminate cancer cells. Unfortunately though, its ferocious chemistry
is not able to differentiate between the cancerous cell or the
healthy cell and surrounding healthy tissue. Put simply, chemotherapy
is an intravenously administered poison that kills all living matter.
Repeated chemotherapy and repeated radiation treatments kill the
whole body by degrees. The immune system is hit particularly hard
by chemotherapy and often does not recuperate enough to adequately
protect from common illnesses, which can then lead to death. Some
67% of people who die during cancer treatment do so through
opportunistic infections arising as a direct result of the immune
system failing because of the aggressive and toxic nature of the
drugs. [7] What is this if it is not death by doctoring?
And the side effects from both chemotherapy and radiation itself
are extensive. They can include dizziness, skin discolouration,
sensory loss, audio-visual impairment, nausea, diarrhoea, loss of
hair, loss of appetite, leading to malnutrition, loss of sex drive,
loss of white blood cells, permanent organ damage, organ failure,
internal bleeding, tissue loss, cardio-vascular leakage (artery
deterioration) to name but a few.
Two years ago, Hazel was diagnosed with breast cancer. She described
her chemotherapy as the worst experience of her life. This highly
toxic fluid was being injected into my veins. The nurse administering
it was wearing protective gloves because it would burn her skin
if just a tiny drip came into contact with it. I couldnt help
asking myself If such precautions were needed to be taken on the
outside, what is it doing to me on the inside? From 7 pm that
evening, I vomited solidly for two and a half days. During my
treatment, I lost my hair by the handful, I lost my appetite, my
skin colour, my zest for life. I was death on legs.
We shall be hearing more from Hazel later, although under very
different circumstances! It seems though that with chemotherapy,
we are once again looking at the acceptable face of King Charles
ammonia treatment and once again, being administered by the highest
physicians in the land. Similarly, on the toxicity of radiation
therapy, John Diamond noted that it was only when he began his
treatment that he began to feel really ill. Senior cancer physician
Dr. Charles Moertal of the Mayo Clinic in the US stated: Our most
effective regimens are fraught with risks and side-effects and
practical problems; and after this price is paid by all the patients
we have treated, only a small fraction are rewarded with a transient
period of usually incomplete tumour regressions.... [8]
Dr Ralph Moss is the author of The Cancer Industry - a shocking
expose of the world of conventional cancer politics and practice.
Interviewed live on the Laurie Lee show in 1994, Moss stated: In
the end, there is no proof that chemotherapy actually extends life
in the vast majority of cases , and this is the great lie about
chemotherapy, that somehow there is a correlation between shrinking
a tumour and extending the life of a patient. [9]
Scientists based at McGill Cancer Centre sent a questionnaire to
118 lung cancer doctors to determine what degree of faith these
practicing cancer physicians placed in the therapies they administered.
They were asked to imagine that they had cancer and were asked which
of six current trials they would choose. 79 doctors responded of
which 64 would not consent to be in any trial containing Cisplatin
one of the common chemotherapydrugs they were trialling, (currently
achieving worldwide sales of about $110,000,000 a year) And 58 of
the 79 found that all the trials in question were unacceptable due
to the ineffectiveness of chemotherapy and its unacceptably high
degree of toxicity. [10]
Chemotherapy - A scientific wasteland
The following extract is taken from Tim O'Shea at The Doctor Within:
A German epidemiologist from the Heidelberg/Mannheim Tumor Clinic,
Dr. Ulrich Abel has done a comprehensive review and analysis of
every major study and clinical trial of chemotherapy ever done. His
conclusions should be read by anyone who is about to embark on the
Chemo Express. To make sure he had reviewed everything ever published
on chemotherapy, Abel sent letters to over 350 medical centers
around the world asking them to send him anything they had published
on the subject. Abel researched thousands of articles: it is unlikely
that anyone in the world knows more about chemotherapy than he.
The analysis took him several years, but the results are astounding:
Abel found that the overall worldwide success rate of chemotherapy
was appalling because there was simply no scientific evidence
available anywhere that chemotherapy can extend in any appreciable
way the lives of patients suffering from the most common organic
cancers. Abel emphasizes that chemotherapy rarely can improve the
quality of life. He describes chemotherapy as a scientific wasteland
and states that at least 80 percent of chemotherapy administered
throughout the world is worthless, and is akin to the emperors new
clothes - neither doctor nor patient is willing to give up on
chemotherapy even though there is no scientific evidence that it
works! - Lancet 10 Aug 91 No mainstream media even mentioned this
comprehensive study: it was totally buried. [10a]
Separating the wheat from the chaff
Whilst in the main dismissing the alternativist treatments as he
called them, and writing in a generally confident manner about his
trust in the conventional medical paradigm, John Diamond would
sometimes waver:
What if those denying alternativists were right? What if the truth
was that no life had ever been saved by radiotherapy and that there
was every chance that my cancer would be made worse by it being
irradiated? What if the truth as pronounced by a couple of books
was that the main effect of cancer surgery was to release stray
cancer cells into the body, allowing them to set up home elsewhere?I
turned to the medical books for solace and got none. [11]
Talk with cancer patients and one soon discovers that many of them
report that, although they have an uncomfortable gut feeling that
there must somehow be a better way forward, they still find themselves
returning to their oncologist for more of the same uncomfortable
treatment. Why is this, when there are proven, non-conventional and
non-harmful treatments readily available?
Surely, one significant factor is our hereditary submissive attitude
to the medical orthodoxy and its archetypal symbolism the white
coat, the stethoscope, the years of knowledge represented in those
framed diplomas. Every artefact speaks of us being in the hands of
experts. And then, there is the added pressure that can be exerted
upon the patient at the point of diagnosis by the cancer physician.
In his essay entitled The $200 Billion Scam, Jeff Kamen reports on
how a cancer diagnosis was delivered to Kathy Keeton, the late wife
of PentHouse Magazine magnate, Bob Guiccione:
Im sorry, she remembers her doctor saying. It's a very rare form
of the disease. It's the nature of this kind of cancer that it takes
off at a gallop, and metastasizes quickly so we need to act quickly
and get you started on chemotherapy at once. We have some of the
best people in the world in this field. I urge you to let me get
you into their expert care. There is no time to waste. This form
of cancer is often fatal, and quickly so. Untreated, you have six
weeks to live. We really must move aggressively with the chemo.
Hazel recalls a similar experience:
Basically, I was in shock from the diagnosis. I was sitting there,
with the doctor saying that this treatment was the best available
and that it was actually a matter of life or death that I received
it. My husband was sitting next to me, telling me that I needed to
go along with it. I kind of went into a trance and although something
didnt feel quite right, I found myself nodding to chemotherapy.
Most definitely, the power imbalance that exists in all doctor-patient
relationships, (whence the term shrink in psychiatry) is a key agent
in determining the direction of treatment.
Confusing and conflicting information
Aside from this very powerful influence, a mass exodus away from
conventional cancer treatment towards proven, non-conventional
treatments has also been severely hampered by the negative effects
of the vast sea of confusing, conflicting and often bizarre information
out there, posing as helpful, alternative cancer advice. A first-timer
seeking alternative advice on the Internet, for instance, can soon
become thoroughly disheartened. Some four thousand links come up
under alternative cancer treatment alone!
An anxious patient, with no time to separate the wheat from the
chaff, is then faced with having to make a series of calculations,
based solely on his negative experiences on the Internet and a sort
of blind, desperate faith that somehow, the well-qualified oncologist
has got to be right. ..And didnt he warn us that there were a lot
of Internet kooks out there? The patient is then right back to
square one and, by default, the chemotherapy suggested earlier seems
overall to be the safest bet. In the view of health reporter Phillip
Day, author of Cancer: Why Were Still Dying to Know The Truth, Many
people just gulp, enter the cancer tunnel and hope they come out
the other end.
Genuine treatments do exist!
But despite the fact that an Internet search can very easily generate
confusion, there is actually a wealth of expertly documented,
credible Internet information available on natural and genuinely
efficacious treatments for a variety of serious illnesses, including
cancer - information that, in some instances, has been in existence
for many years. But information on such treatments is not widely
available in the public domain. Perhaps because genuine medicine
has had to fight tremendously hard to be clearly heard. And there
are particular reasons why this has been so. Often, it is not so
much where to look for genuine natural treatment and medical advice,
as how to look for it. Before discussing specific cancer treatments
in more depth, it is important that we briefly examine the reasons
for the current levels of confusion surrounding genuine natural
medicine as a whole. Wilful distortion, unwitting stupidity - you
name it. Conventional and alternative, its taking place on both
sides of the fence. We must learn to read between the lines.
Fork-tongued drug merchants
In its long, hard battle for proper recognition, genuine natural
treatments for serious illnesses has always had to fight on two
fronts. Firstly, it has had to do battle with those calculating
opportunists the fork-tongued drug merchants who use every trick
in the book to undermine any genuine treatments not under their own
jurisdiction. And they will employ all means possible to disseminate
their damaging disinformation as far and wide as possible in order
to protect their own lucrative market. No department, private or
public, is beyond the reach of their all-consuming influence.
Thriller writer John Le Carre spent many years working in the British
Foreign Office and knows the politics of big business very well.
His most recent book The Constant Gardener, focuses on the corrupt
nature of the pharmaceutical industry. In an interview on the
subject, Le Carre stated recently:
Big Pharma is engaged in the deliberate seduction of the medical
profession, country by country, worldwide. It is spending a fortune
on influencing, hiring and purchasing academic judgment to a point
where, in a few years time, if Big Pharma continues unchecked on
its present happy path, unbought medical opinion will be hard to
find. [12]
In opposition to the incessant drive by big business to dominate
our health choices, Dr Matthias Rath (below left) provides a concise
summary of the primary ethics of the merchants house:
Throughout the 20th century, the pharmaceutical industry has been
constructed by investors, the goal being to replace effective but
non-patentable natural remedies with mostly ineffective but patentable
and highly profitable pharmaceutical drugs. The very nature of the
pharmaceutical industry is to make money from ongoing diseases.
Like other industries, the pharmaceutical industry tries to expand
their market - that is to maintain ongoing diseases and to find
new diseases for their drugs. Prevention and cure of diseases damages
the pharmaceutical business and the eradication of common diseases
threatens its very existence.
Therefore, the pharmaceutical industry fights the eradication of
any disease at all costs. The pharmaceutical industry itself is the
main obstacle, why today's most widespread diseases are further
expanding including heart attacks, strokes, cancer, high blood
pressure, diabetes, osteoporosis, and many others. Pharmaceutical
drugs are not intended to cure diseases. According to health insurers,
over 24,000 pharmaceutical drugs are currently marketed and prescribed
without any proven therapeutic value (AOKMagazine 4/98). According
to medical doctors associations, the known dangerous side-effects
of pharmaceutical drugs have become the fourth leading cause of
death after heart attacks, cancer and strokes (Journal of the
American Medical Association, JAMA April 15, 1998 )
Millions of people and patients around the world are defrauded
twice: A major portion of their income is used up to finance the
exploding profits of the pharmaceutical industry. In return, they
are offered a medicine that does not even cure.
Dr Rath is currently spearheading the fight against the pharmacetical
industries as they seek to legislate against our free use of vitamins
and minerals. If this legislation is passed, it will directly affect
YOU in many ways. Please visit right now
and sign the petition. It will only take thirty seconds and is so
important. And such is the nature of the information still to come
on this site I have every confidence that you will be right back!
Writing in the UK Guardian on thursday, 7th February, 2002, senior
health editor Sarah Bosely reports that:
Scientists are accepting large sums of money from drug companies
to put their names to articles endorsing new medicines that they
have not written - a growing practice that some fear is putting
scientific integrity in jeopardy. [12a]
These supposed guardians of our health are being paid what to say.
Said one physician in the article, What day is it today? I'm just
working out what drug I'm supporting today. From top to bottom,
21st century medicine is being bought and taught to think of all
medical treatment in terms of pharmaceutical intervention only.
Aside from the politicking and the big business string-pulling
taking place behind the scenes, our minds are also being washed
with the constant froth of emotive, unfounded, pro-establishment,
populist headlines such as Another breakthrough at UCLA! (yesbut
with mice.) Its in the genes! (another 5 million NOW will help us
to isolate the gene in 2010perhaps.) Excitement at latest oncology
findings! (Buoyant opening paragraph, descending into the usual
mixture of hope extinguished by caution and the obligatory appeal
to the pocket.) Cancer vaccine close! (Yes, and close since 1975
actually. But please, continue to give generously, because next
time, it could be you!)
And so it goes on. And all the while, the mortality statistics
worsen. Yet still, the money - our money - just keeps on rolling
in. On that note, The Campaign Against Fraudulent Medical Research
states: The next time you are asked to donate to a cancer organisation,
bear in mind that your money will be used to sustain an industry
which has been deemed by many eminent scientists as a qualified
failure and by others, as a complete fraud. [13]
Thank you to Dr Tim O'Shea for the following very important information
on the practice of mammography:
This is one topic where the line between advertising and scientific
proof has become very blurred. As far back as 1976, the American
Cancer Society itself and its government colleague the National
Cancer Institute terminated the routine use of mammography for women
under the age of 50 because of its detrimental (carcinogenic)
effects. More recently, a large study done in Canada on found that
women who had routine mammograms before the age of 50 also had
increased death rates from breast cancer by 36%. (Miller) Lorraine
Day notes the same findings in her video presentation Cancer Doesnt
Scare Me Any More. The reader is directed to these sources and
should perhaps consider the opinion of other sources than those
selling the procedure, before making a decision.
John McDougall MD has made a thorough review of pertinent literature
on mammograms. He points out that the $5-13 billion per year generated
by mammograms controls the information that women get. Fear and
incomplete data are the tools commonly used to persuade women to
get routine mammograms. What is clear is that mammography cannot
prevent breast cancer or even the spread of breast cancer. By the
time a tumor is large enough to be detected by mammography, it has
been there as long as 12 years! It is therefore ridiculous to
advertise mammography as early detection. (McDougall p 114)
The other unsupportable illusion is that mammograms prevent breast
cancer, which they dont. On the contrary, the painful compression
of breast tissue during the procedure itself can increase the
possibility of metastasis by as much as 80%! Dr. McDougall notes
that a between 10 and 17% of the time, breast cancer is a self-limiting
non-life-threatening type called ductal carcinoma in situ. This
harmless cancer can be made active by the compressive force of
routine mammography. (McDougall, p105)
Most extensive studies show no increased survival rate from routine
screening mammograms. After reviewing all available literature in
the world on the subject, noted researchers Drs. Wright and Mueller
of the University of British Columbia recommended the withdrawal
of public funding for mammography screening, because the benefit
achieved is marginal, and the harm caused is substantial. (Lancet,
1 Jul 1995) The harm theyre referring to includes the constant
worrying and emotional distress, as well as the tendency for
unnecessary procedures and testing to be done based on results which
have a false positive rate as high as 50%. (New York Times, 14 Dec
1997) [13a]
Whilst the remit of this article does not extend to a full exploration
of the influence that money has had over the corruption of true
medicine and medical practice, let the reader be assured that
conventional medicine has more than its fair share of attendant
commercial pressures, and especially so in the world of cancer, as
we shall soon discover.
Non-conventional health care
Aside from the wiles of the merchant, genuine medicine also has
always had to do battle with the well-intentioned para-healer, [14]
who unwittingly has the capacity to prove equally as threatening
to the cause, but for very different reasons. The non-conventional
medical market place seems to be dominated by those who are able
to deliver an admirably coherent deconstruction of the conventional
paradigm, but who choose not to apply the same level of intelligent
critique to their own often wacky nostrums. As such, we are subject
to an equally misguided barrage of pronouncements such as, Submit
not to the ravages of chemo. Let White Eagle purge you of those
negative energies. Visit a pyramid, a shaman, My sickness is a
shamanic gift and calling. [14a] a cancer guide, OK group. Eyes
closed. Your cancer is receding. The lump is disintegrating. Envisage
the all-consuming fire! A coat of mud, of seaweed or both, some
psycho-surgery, some radionics, this therapy, that therapy and of
course, a thousand and one folk remedies, Grandmas trusted brain
tumour elixir perhaps, a walnut kernel, perfectly preserved in
rainwater, seven drops three times a day.
Celebrities with the more serious illnesses receive these
well-intentioned tips and tricks by the sack load. John Diamond was
no exception.
Ive had anecdotal evidence from those who believe in voodoo, the
power of the fairy people - yes, really - drinking my own p**s and
any number of other remedies I should put my faith in the Bessarabian
radish, the desiccated root of which has been used for centuries
by Tartar nomads to cure athletes foot, tennis elbow and cancer,
as detailed in their book Why Your Doctor Hates You And Wants You
To Die, review copy enclosed[15]
Notwithstanding the genuine treatments available in the natural
cabinet, which we shall discuss very shortly, a huge number of
remedies being sold as medicine today contain no sensible methodology,
yet amazingly, they are selling very well. No better is this
phenomenon illustrated than in the lucrative minor ailments market,
where on a daily basis across the world, untold millions is being
spent on pharmacologically inert mixtures and essences, producing
truly marvellous results with illnesses from which we were going
to get better anyway.[16]
The dangers of uncritical thinking
In truth, were the general public to be given clear information on
the nature of self-limiting illness and on the wondrous ability of
a properly nourished immune system to overcome almost all ills
unaided, the bottom would fall out of the minor ailments market
tomorrow, both conventional and alternative. Unfortunately though,
any of the more awkward questions arising from this discussion,
such as How can you continue to sell these ointments as 'medicines'
in the light of this knowledge? are usually defended not by answering
the actual question itself, but by the therapist appealing to the
worthiness of his wider philanthropic goals and to the much greater
threat to the global populace posed by the merchants house with all
its toxic wares, etc., etc. Donald Gould, author of The Black and
White Medicine Show, warns of the dangers we invite by adopting
such laissez-faire reasoning:
Why not make the most of what the non-conformists have to offer and
to hell with uncharitable logic? There is, I suggest, a powerful
reason for rejecting this superficially attractive option. Truth
is a fundamental value. If we accept uncritical thinking in one
area of our lives for the sake of convenience or because of the
popular appeal of a seductive myth and the short-term comfort to
be gained by believing in the unbelievable, or because the false
answer lets us pretend we are competently coping with a painful
problem we haven't truly tackled, then we are all the more likely
to adopt the same strategy in other situations, from dealing with
the family, to managing the national economy, and from chairing the
parish council to handling arsenals of nuclear weapons. The result
is likely to be unhappy and stands a decent chance of proving a
disaster. Irrational beliefs are always dangerously corrupting,
even when they only relate to the cause and cure of piles. [17]
Reputation is everything
But what relevance does all this have to the debate on treatments
for cancer, you might ask? Where is all of this headed? This has
been a necessary diversion firstly, that we might begin to understand
some of the frustrations many reasoned thinkers have with the issues
raised: and secondly, that we might begin to consider the impact
that such weakened thinking has on genuine natural treatments for
disease. For instance, what damage is secondarily being wrought
upon the reputation of the genuine treatments in the cabinet, the
ones that can actually heal? Sadly, there is no clear division
between the reputation of much of the unregulated alternative health
industry and that of the many sensible and proven, non-conventional
treatments available today. It has all become a horrible blur and
is a point of major concern even to the non-orthodox regulatory
bodies overseeing the alternative/complementary health movement.
The whole arena is fraught with as much vested interests and
misunderstandings as conventional health, but commentaries drawing
such conclusions even from those concerned bodies sympathetic to
the natural approach are viewed as almost heretical and somehow
betraying the brotherhood of the alternative heirachy.
Personally speaking, critical debate should commence as soon as
possible with regard to those helping therapies that only temporarily
distract the seriously ill. In need only of sensible advice and
sensible treatment, these people can very quickly end up worse off
in body, mind and spirit; and last but not least, in pocket, leading
very quickly to derision and a carte blanche dismissal of all the
good that genuine natural treatments have to offer. John Diamond
stated that there was as much chance of him going down the alternative
treatment route as there was of the Pope getting drunk on the
communion wine and getting off with a couple of nuns. [18]
Whilst we can perhaps understand some of John Diamonds frustrations,
his comparisons dont exactly aid the cause. Because the truth is
that the alternativists cabinet is not all mumbo-jumbo by any means.
Genuine medicine can be found in there. Perhaps a name change is
in order. Are we alternative? Are we complementary? But complementary
to what? To chemotherapy perhaps? But then what medicine could
possibly complement chemotherapy? Shouldnt there just be medicine
and non-medicine, full stop? Be that as it may, many people are
wrongly assuming that the non-orthodox medical cabinet is barren
and not worthy of closer inspection. The hazy and often crazy
information being disseminated on numerous non-conventional treatments
coupled with our innate and nave trust in the orthodoxy is the
reason why thousands of people like John Diamond are staying with,
and relying upon conventional treatments for serious illnesses,
including cancer. As a result, thousands of people like John Diamond
are dying, and often in a horrible fashion.
Vitamin B17 ..cancer cells were dying like flies.
In his UK Observer article entitled Quacks on the Rack, John Diamond
summarily dismissed what is arguably the most famous of the natural
and proven anti-cancer treatments known to man, the natural extract
of the apricot kernel, otherwise known as Vitamin B17.
Supporters of Laetrile (vitamin B17) and Essiac, in particular,
made so much noise about their miracle cures that both have been
through the research mill on numerous occasions and found to be
useless. [19]
Now we can ask ourselves whether it was perhaps the fault of some
kindly but misguided soul who posted John Diamond an essay on the
benefits of Vitamin B17 mixed with walnut water that caused him to
dismiss B17 so emphatically. Or it could be that John actually
trusted the conventional research reports he had accrued on this
vitamin? Interestingly, Dr. Dean Burk, the former head of the
Cytochemistry Department of the National Cancer Institute, and one
of the co-founders of this famous American medical institution, had
worked on Vitamin B17 personally. He described this substance in
very different terms:
When we add laetrile to a cancer culture under the microscope, said
Burk, providing the enzyme glucosidase also is present, we can see
the cancer cells dying off like flies. [20] (glucosidase being the
enzyme heavily present in cancerous cells which triggers the unique
cancer-destroying mechanism found in Vitamin B17. An excellent
clinical analysis of this mechanism is found in B17 Metabolic Therapy
In The Prevention And Control Of Cancer - a concise history of the
research into this vitamin, including many clinical assessments.
More details on this book can be found at the end of this article.)
[21] Dr Burk also stated that evidence for Laetriles efficacy had
been noted in at least five independent institutions in three widely
separated countries of the world. [22]
So who do we trust in this matter? Diamond or Burk? By looking at
where John Diamond might have got his B17 research information, the
ugly features of conventional cancer research move more sharply
into focus.
Because of the money
Cancer is big business and knowledge claims on any treatments that
earn money and, conversely, on any treatments that do not earn money
for the drug companies, are never neutral. Dr Ralph Moss served
as the Assistant Director of Public Affairs at Americas most famous
cancer research institution, Memorial Sloan Kettering, in Manhattan.
He knows the cancer industry inside out. Hear what he has to say
and judge for yourself the quality of the evidence against the
effectiveness of Vitamin B17:
Moss: Shortly after I went to work [at the Sloan Kettering Cancer
Institute], I visited the elderly Japanese scientist, Kanematsu
Sugiura, who astonished me when he told me he was working on Laetrile
(B17). At the time it was the most controversial thing in cancer,
reputed to be a cure for cancer. We in Public Affairs were giving
out statements that laetrile was worthless, it was quackery, and
that people should not abandon proven therapies. I was astonished
that our most distinguished scientist would be bothering with
something like this, and I said, Why are you doing this if it doesnt
work? He took down his lab books and showed me that in fact Laetrile
was dramatically effective in stopping the spread of cancer.
Lee: So this is verified, that laetrile can have this positive
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. [23]
Unable to sit on this information, Moss later called a press
conference of his own and, before a battery of reporters and
cameramen, charged that Sloan-Kettering officials had engineered a
massive cover-up. He provided all the supporting documents and named
all the names necessary to validate his case. The following day he
was fired for failing to carry out his most basic job responsibilities.
Similarly, in his book World Without Cancer, cancer industry
researcher Edward Griffin noted
Every Laetrile study had been tarnished with the same kind of
scientific ineptitude, bias and outright deception Some of these
studies openly admitted evidence of anti-cancer effect but hastened
to attribute this effect to other causes. Some were toxicity studies
only, which means that they werent trying to see if Laetrile was
effective, but merely to determine how much of it was required to
kill the patient. [24a]
The evidence supporting John Diamonds claim that Vitamin B17 is
useless and even dangerous is available in abundance in all of the
major cancer institutions today. Well of course it is! Were in the
merchants house, dont forget. As Pat Rattigan, author of 'The Cancer
Business' reports:
"The threat to the cancer business from effective therapies was
taken very seriously from the beginning. By the 1940's the Syndicate
had 300,000 names on its 'quack' files. Vitamin B17, being a unique
threat due to its simplicity, attracted more concentrated attacks
than all the other treatments put together: fraudulent test reports;
hired, banner-carrying pickets outside clinics; rigged juries;
newspaper character assassinations; dismissal of heretic employees,
etc. The FDA, orchestrating the onslaught, sent out 10,000 posters
and hundreds of thousands of leaflets warning about the dangers of
the toxicity of the non-toxic substance. Earlier, a Congressional
Accounting Office had found that 350 FDA employees had shares in,
or had refused to declare an interest in, the pharmaceutical
The American Food and Drug Administration issued one such story
about the death of an eleven month old girl, supposedly from cyanide
poisoning due to her apparently swallowing her father's Vitamin B17
tablets. Cancer specialist and B17 advocate Dr Harold Manner takes
up the story:
"I was lecturing in Buffalo, New York and...after I had made some
strong statements - a man stood up and said "Dr. Manner, how in the
world can you make statements like that when the FDA is making these
other statements?" I reiterated that the FDA statements were lies.
'He said, "Look at this little girl in upstate New York, she took
her father's Laetrile tablets and died of cyanide poisoning." Just
then a little lady stood up: "Dr. Manner let me answer that question.
I think I am entitled to because I am that little baby's mother.
That baby never touched her father's Laetrile tablets. The doctor,
knowing the father was on Laetrile, marked down "possible cyanide
poisoning". At the hospital they used a cyanide antidote and it was
the antidote that killed the child. And yet that statement will
continue to appear even though they know it is a lie." [24b]
The scare stories always focus on the minute amounts of naturally
occurring cyanide found in VitaminB17. But no mention is made in
any of these stories of the wondrous mechanism governing the release
of this cyanide. No harm is done to the person eating this vitamin
( if that were the case, we have consumed enough apricots, apples,
peaches and cherries etc containing B17 to have finished us off
long ago.) The cyanide is released only when cancerous cells are
recognised by their high glucosidase content. B17 cyanide attacks
cancer cells specifically. No large amounts of glucosidase detected
means no cyanide release. Rest assured, there is no evidence that
vitamin B17 can kill, unless of course, one is accidentally crushed
under a pallet of the stuff!
A further embarrasment for the cancer orthodoxy must surely be the
research being carried out at the Imperial College in London, where
researchers are looking at ways of using naturally-occurring plant
cyanide to specifically attack human bowel tumours. The idea came
about after studying the pattern of specific cyanide release in the
almond and cassava fruit which protects them from insect attack.
Another one of those natural wonders just crying out to be heard
is at last being listened to by the orthodoxy perhaps? [24c]
Very sadly, in assessing the deservedness of the shady reputation
bestowed upon Vitamin B17 metabolic therapy, we realise it is
entirely unwarranted and that instead, there has been a sustained
attack by the conventional cancer industry on this treatment, an
attack that has carried on in one form or another for the last forty
years.As mentioned earlier, with global spending on conventional
cancer running into the hundreds of billions annually, a
naturally-occurring cancer cure of any description is an unwanted
intruder. Dr Moss again, on the money involved in conventional
Moss: About 630,000 people die every year of cancer in the US, and
it really is an epidemic disease. We have got a tremendous industry.
Every one of those people who is getting cancer and dying of it is
going to be treated, and these treatments are extremely expensive.
Chemo is tens of thousands, sometimes hundreds of thousands of
dollars. A bone marrow transplant, which is basically another way
of giving chemotherapy, or radiation, can run to about $150,000 per
person, and is almost never effective. It kills about 25% of the
Lee: Why carry on doing it?
Moss: Because of the money, which is tremendous. [25]
When we understand the amounts of money involved, we can begin to
understand the in-house desire to sustain a fact-creating process
in support of conventional treatment. Conventional cancer treatment
and research are a licence to print money. Most definitely,
conventional interested parties and institutions have colluded in
a shameful anti-Vitamin B17 fact-creating process, which in turn
has surely led to the early and even unnecessary deaths of thousands
upon thousands of people. As for John Diamonds dismissal of Vitamin
B17, he didnt write his comments on B17 as an intentional slur. He
wasnt the forked tongue in this chain of events. He desperately
wanted to live. His single paragraph read by thousands was just
another example of the damaging knock-on effect of merchant-speak.
Merchant-speak on Vitamin B17 metabolic therapy has exacted a grave
injustice upon this treatment and subsequently, upon all who have
been persuaded to think likewise. Let's now hear some testimonies
from those who have not been persuaded by the negative propaganda.
Phillip is 64. In April 2001, he was diagnosed with inoperable lung
cancer. The oncologist showed him the x-rays that confirmed the
dreaded shadows. He was told to go home, enjoy his life as best he
could and put his affairs in order. A week later, in a chance
conversation at work, Phillip was told about Vitamin B17. Phillip
immediately began taking a combination of Vitamin B17 and Vitamin
C. Four months later, Phillip returned to hospital for a check-up,
where a new set of x-rays were taken. The shadows had completely
disappeared. Says Phillip, I know what I saw and the doctor couldnt
explain it. Im continuing with my Vitamin B17 regime and eating
about 10 kernels a day. Phillip now pays great attention to his
diet and believes that what we put into our bodies can have a
dramatic effect medicinally.
The importance of nutrition
John Diamond again, this time on some nutter with a magical diet:
I was waiting my turn for zapping [radiation] one day and mentioned
the ludicrousness of one diet Id been reading about. The radiographer
agreed and said that when she had started at the hospital there
used to be a nutter who, having refused radiography, would come
down and rail against those sitting in the radiotherapy waiting
room, telling them they should abandon evil radiation and take up
his magical diet. Criminal, I said. You kicked him out of course?
Well yes, she said, we kicked him out regularly. The only thing
was, he did survive for years and the cancer did disappear. Which
only goes to prove well, nothing very much at all really, but I
thought Id pass it on in the name of fair dealing. [26]
Now if this cancer nutter was just an isolated case of recovery
through diet, his recovery would not of course constitute proof.
But with Vitamin B17 metabolic therapy, we are seeing tremendous
results time after time. Continuing on in the name of fair dealing
William was diagnosed with a tumour in the oesophagus. He could not
swallow food without it being liquidised. He had read about Vitamin
B17 twelve months previously and had kept the article. William began
taking Vitamin B17 soon after diagnosis. After three weeks, he was
swallowing food a lot easier and after about seven weeks was told
by his doctor that the only reason for this was because the tumour
was shrinking. Says William, The operation to remove the tumour was
cancelled and I am still awaiting the results of the latest scan.
I feel fit as a fiddle. I pay attention to my diet and I thank God
quite literally for vitamin B17. It is time the NHS recognised
this vitamin as an alternative to the conventional treatments. I
consider that any money spent on B17 is money well spent.
What are we eating?
It is interesting to note that there are cultures today who remain
almost entirely cancer-free. The Abkhasians, the Azerbaijanis, the
Hunzas, the Eskimaux and the Karakorum all live on foodstuffs rich
in nitriloside or vitamin B17. Their food consists variously of
buckwheat, peas, broad beans, lucerne, turnips, lettuce, sprouting
pulse or gram, apricots with their seeds and berries of various
kinds. Their diet can provide them with as much as 2503,000mg of
nitriloside a day. The founding father of Vitamin B17 research,
Ernst T Krebs Jr., studied the dietary habits of these tribes. Krebs
Upon investigating the diet of these people, we found that the seed
of the apricot was prized as a delicacy and that every part of the
apricot was utilized. [27]
The average western diet with its refined, fibreless foods offers
less than 2mg of nitriloside a day. It has also been noted that
natives from these tribes, who move into civilised areas and change
their diets accordingly, are prone to cancers at the regular western
incidence. [28]
The right materials
In his book, Preface to Cancer: Nature, Cause and Cure, Dr Alexander
Berglas has this to say about cancer incidence: Civilization is,
in terms of cancer, a juggernaut that cannot be stopped... It is
the nature and essence of industrial civilization to be toxic in
every sense... We are faced with the grim prospect that the advance
of cancer and of civilization parallel each other. [29]
The human body has an amazing capacity to recover, if we look after
it properly and if we supply it with the proper materials for repair.
Working with non-toxic, physio-friendly treatments can only work
in our favour. Just look at the side-effects of Vitamin B17 as
described by Edward G Griffin in World Without Cancer:
B17 side-effects include increased appetite, weight gain, lowered
blood pressure, increased hemoglobin and red-blood cell count,
elimination or sharp reduction of pain without narcotics, builds
up bodys resistance to other diseases, is a natural substance found
in foods and is compatible with human biological experience, destroys
cancer cells while nourishing non-cancer cells. [30]
Compare the above with the side effects from chemotherapy and
radiation, the dizziness, skin discolouration, nausea, diarrhoea,
loss of hair, loss of appetite, organ failure, internal bleeding
etc., etc. How long will it be before we find ourselves looking
back on these treatments in the same way as we now look back on the
blood letting and the ammonia infusions exacted upon Charles II?
Notwithstanding the often life-saving surgical removal of cancerous
tissue, could there possibly be a more inhumane treatment in the
21st century than conventional cancer therapy?
Flora was diagnosed with stage 4 bowel cancer in 1999.
Before the operation, they gave me chemotherapy which was devastating.
By the end of the course, I could hardly stand. They then removed
the tumour from my bowel. I was told the cancer had spread to the
liver. I was offered further chemotherapy but declined. I attended
Middlesex hospital and had five sessions of laser treatment to try
and contain the liver cancer followed by more chemotherapy. After
the fifth time of trying to contain the cancer, they said that it
was beginning to grow yet again. So I began an organic diet and
attended the Dove Clinic for intensive Vitamin C treatment, with
other supplements. It was there that I was told about Vitamin B17.
I added that to my regime. Over a period of time, the cancer
completely disappeared from my liver. It is now February 2002 and
I have been one year clear of cancer. I am maintaining my organic
diet and eating about 50 apricot kernels a day. Im 64, Ive returned
to work and I feel fine. Treatments such as these should at least
be made known to patients by the NHS.
There are literally thousands of people who can attest to the
pharmacological, life-saving power of Vitamin B17 and its supporting
nutritional regime. And the same can also be said of Vitamin C.
Vitamin C
The all-round benefits of Vitamin C to the human physiology have
been known and utilised for centuries. In terms of its benefits in
cancer treatment and prevention, we read the following from Phillip
Dr Linus Pauling, often known as the Father of Vitamin C and twice
awarded the Nobel Prize, declared that daily intakes of up to 10g
of the vitamin aids anti-cancer activity within the body. Pauling
was largely derided for making these declarations, but today, large
doses of Vitamin C are used by many practitioners for cancer patients
in nutritional therapy, who believe Pauling was right and that the
popular nutrient is indispensable to the body in its fight to regain
health from cancer. [31]
Vitamin C can also protect against breast cancer.
After reviewing 90 studies on the relationship between Vitamin C
and cancer, Gladys Block, Ph.D. at the University of California at
Berkeley concluded,
There is overwhelming evidence of the protective effect of vitamin
C and other antioxidants against cancer of the breast. [32]
And Geoffrey R. Howe of the National Cancer Institute of Canada
reviewed 12 case-controlled studies of diet and breast cancer and
noted that Vitamin C had the most consistent statistically significant
relationship to the reduction of breast cancer risk. [32a] And on
the subject of the importance of mineral and vitamin supplements,
a recent New York Times front-page article quoted Dr. Geoffrey P.
Oakley, Jr., at the Center for Disease Control and Prevention in
Atlanta as saying:
We, the physicians, were mistaken not to recommend vitamin supplements
to our patients for so long. We need just to admit that on this
one, we were wrong. [33]
Hazel had been given a virtual death sentence by her cancer doctor,
telling her that although there was an 86% recovery from her type
of breast cancer, she was unfortunately in the smaller category.
As previously noted, Hazels chemotherapy was only making her feel
terrible, and she decided that if she was going to die, then she
would do so without further conventional treatment. Hazel began a
regime of intravenously administered Vitamin C and supplements
including Vitamin B17 and paid great attention to her diet. She
soon began to feel a great deal better. She regained her weight and
her hair and her appetite. About nine months following the diagnosis,
she was troubled with lower back pain and visited her doctor. He
suggested a further scan based on Hazels lower back pain, which the
doctor believed was possibly the result of her cancer having spread
to the base of her spine. Hazel said there was no way she was going
for more chemotherapy or scans which she believes in themselves can
trigger carcinogenic activity. Instead, Hazel supplemented her
Vitamin C regime with a course of Vitamin B17 kernels, as well as
maintaining a sensible diet and staying away from her conventional
cancer physician. The blood count taken by her GP before Christmas
read as normal. She feels very healthy and is in the process of
writing a book on her experiences. She feels passionately that
people need to know that there are alternative cancer treatments
available and speaks to groups on this subject.
Let the reader be assured that the recent scare tactics surrounding
Vitamin C and its supposed links to cancer are just another one of
those smear campaigns orchestrated by the merchants. Quite simply,
any good news on Vitamin C represents yet another threat to the
pharmaceutical industries considerable income from conventional
cancer treatments. The full story on the vested interests supporting
the author of the much-publicised Vitamin C/cancer story can be
found at
And finally, we hear from Dr Nicola Hembry of the Dove Clinic,
specialising in the non-conventional approach to cancer care and
Nutritional treatments such as high dose vitamin C and B17 (laetrile)
have been known about for years, and there are many success stories
from patients lucky enough to have received and benefited from them.
Research shows that levels of 400mg/dl Vitamin C in the blood can
kill cancer cells by a pro-oxidative mechanism, and there is a great
deal of data showing that B17 is preferentially toxic to cancer
cells. The trouble is that there is little in the way of well-designed
random control trial data for the use of these substances, and
therefore mainstream medicine rejects them out of hand without even
considering the evidence available or even asking why these trials
haven't been carried out. It has to be said that one of the reasons
is a lack of financial incentive because these substances cannot
be patented. Sadly it is the cancer sufferers who lose out. To not
even have the choice of these safer, more natural treatments even
when a cancer is deemed incurable and only palliative chemotherapy
or radiotherapy is offered is in my view totally unacceptable. I
have seen many patients experience an improved duration and quality
of life with an integrated approach, and some go on to achieve
complete remission of their disease even when dismissed as incurable
by their oncologists.
Treating cancer is not just about getting hold of Vitamin B17 as
quickly as possible. We need to be educated in a whole range of
issues. 'Cancer: Why Were Still Dying To Know The Truth' has been
written in an easily readable and easily understood manner,
specifically to inform the general public on all of the key issues
pertaining to natural treatment for cancer. It makes for necessary
and fascinating reading!
For those interested in finding out more on the issues raised in
this article, just click on the following titles available from
Credence Publications.
Cancer: Why Were Still Dying To Know The Truth A concise account
of the cancer industry and of the good news on vitamin B17 metabolic
Vitamin B17 Metabolic Therapy A Clinical Guide A clinical account
of vitamin B17, detailing the landmark research on this most vital
of vitamins in the fight against cancer.
Food For Thought Delicious recipes designed to promote health. A
vital contribution to cancer prevention and recovery. All these
titles and more available at
And finally...
Throughout the writing of this article, I have been acutely aware
of three things.
Firstly, of my own slender mortality and that it is only by the
grace of God that I have not had to face a cancer diagnosis of my
own. The motivating factor behind the writing of Death by Doctoring
was to inject realism as well as a sense of hope. And as far as
one is able to write about a subject without having personally
walked that particular walk, I hope also that this article has been
written with the deserved sensitivity.
Secondly, Vitamin B17 metabolic therapy and Vitamin C form only
part of a much wider regime of treatments that have proven successful
in the treatment of cancer. These and other treatments are explained
in more detail in the above Credence titles.
Thirdly, this site does not accuse all doctors of working towards
some vast medical conspiracy to kill everyone! A doctor wrote to
this site recently, under the impression that Death by Doctoring
is propagating this belief.
"I have yet to see single shred of evidence the supports the
conspiracy theories that abound on the web. It doesn't matter whether
it's cancer treatment, aspartame, or even soybeans. Consider this:
would any company seek to sell products that kill the customer? It
doesn't make any sense. The scientist who discovered cisplatin [the
drug that 81% of cancer doctors would not administer to themselves.
Page 4. ed] was a professor of mine in university. I knew his mind
and his heart. He wanted to find a cure because it had devastated
someone in his family. While all chemotherapies are poisons, by
extension of your logic, he was creating a product that he knew
would kill his family members. Does that even make sense to you?"
Of course I am not saying that medical professors are intentionally
designing something that would kill. With chemotherapy, what started
off as a supposed saviour, quickly turned into a huge money-spinner,
but with devastating consequences. A lucrative ball had gained too
much momentum. And once the profitability of a drug is recognised,
the business decisions at corporate level are often at complete
odds with those lower down at manufacturing and distribution level.
As for those within the industry's 'circle of knowledge' regarding
the dangers of today's pharmaceuticals, very definitely there are
key personnel within drug companies who know exactly the dangers
that relate to their products, but who choose to say nothing in
order to preserve income and to protect from litigation. To deny
this takes place would be naive in the extreme. Nicholas Murray
Butler was chief spokesman for US giant JP Morgan and Co. On the
subject of 'circles of knowledge', Butler once stated:
The world is divided into three classes of people: a very small
group that makes things happen, a somewhat larger group that watches
things happen, and the great multitude which never knows what really
Applying this principle to the pharmaceutical industry, further on
down the chain of command, a number of dangerous products are being
manufactured and prescribed today, by a great multitude who are
innocently proud to be associated with these supposedly 'life-saving'
medicines. Conventional doctors especially can so easily fall into
the category of 'Butler's 'great multitude'. Working under extreme
pressures, doctors and nurses just do not have room in their day
to step off the conventional treadmill to conduct contrary research.
It is far simpler and far more expedient to dismiss all non-pharmaceutical
information as fringe lunacy.
Having said all this, there are many, many dedicated people involved
in conventional health care who are practicing elements of conventional
medicine and who are saving and enhancing lives every day, not
least in some methods of diagnosis, pre-emptive surgery and in acute
and emergency medicine. Accident and Emergency units especially,
perform a tremendous job. As with all medicine, may the good continue
and may the bad be open to complete reappraisal.
Finally, I do so wish Id been given the opportunity to meet John
Diamond. Because I reckon wed have got on like a house on fire. And
who knows what might have happened as a result?
printer-friendly version available here
For re-publication details or further information, call now on
01825 765588 or mobile 07947 496488
A letters page is being added to this site. Your comments on the
issues raised are most welcome. The views of those readers with
medical qualifications are especially welcome. Please write to
Thank you for reading.
Steven Ransom,
Research Director,
Credence Publications
2 Cancer The Social Impact
3 Dr Rob Buckman, Magic Or Medicine, Pan Books, 1994
4 John Diamond, C: Because Cowards Get Cancer Too, Vermilion
Press, 1999
5 Prof. George Mathe, Scientific Medicine Stymied, Medicines
Nouvelles (Paris) 1989
6 The Ecologist, Vol 28, No. 2, March/April 1998
7 The Home of Orthomolecular Oncology
8 Edward G Griffin, World without Cancer, American Media Publications,
9 Phillip Day, Cancer: Why Were Still Dying To Know The Truth,
Credence Publications, 2000
10 Phillip Day, Cancer: Why Were .. ibid
10a Chemotherapy - an unproven procedure
11 C: Because Cowards ibid
12 Interview with John Le Carr, The Nation, New York, 9.4.2001
12a Full story,described as professional prostitution at,11381,646078,00.html
13 Robert Ryan, Bsc.,Cancer Research - A Super-fraud?
13a Dr Tim O'Shea,
14 Para-healer from the word para: close to, alongside, near,
irregular healer
14a Holger Kalweit, Dream time and Inner Space, Shambala Publications,
15 John Diamond, Quacks on the Rack, Observer Newspapers, 3.12.2000
and C: Because Cowards Get Cancer Too, Vermilion Press, 1999
16 95,000,000 is spent on cough mixtures alone in the UK. The BMJ
however has reported a recent trial involving 2000 participants
which found that in most cases, the mixtures were no more
effective than placebo. More details at
17 Gould, Donald, The Black and White Medicine Show, Hamilton 1985
18 C: Because Cowards ibid
19 John Diamond, Quacks on the Rack, UK Observer, December 3rd,
20 World Without Cancer, ibid
21 B17 Metabolic Therapy In The Prevention And Control Of Cancer -
compiled by Phillip Day, Credence Publications, 2001
22 Phillip Day, Cancer: Why Were .. ibid
23 Cancer: Why were ibid
24 Ralph Moss, The Cancer Syndrome, Grove Press, 1980
24a Griffin, G Edward, World Without Cancer, American Media, 1998
24b Pat Rattigan, The Cancer Business,
24c Cyanide Targets Cancer BBC News Report at
25 Cancer: Why were ibid
26 C: Because Cowards ibid
27 Krebs, Ernst T Nutritional and Therapeutic Implications, John
Beard Memorial Foundation (privately published), 1964
28 Stefansson, Vilhjalmur CANCER: Disease of Civilisation? An
Anthropological and Historical Study, Hill & Wang, New York, 1960.
29 Berglas, Dr Alexander, ibid
30 World Without Cancer, ibid
31 Cancer: Why were ibid
32a ibid
33 ibid



Cancer Symptoms

Recommended "Schizophrenia" Nutritional and Dietary Regimen

Well-Done Meat
and Smoking
EMF The Risk Evaluation
Stupid Arrogance: So-Called "Naturopathic Physicians"...
Avoiding Aluminum
The 35 Symptoms perimenopause and menopause
American Cancer Society exposed
The Man Who Questions Chemotherapy
Unhealthy Charities
researcher links cigarette smoke, vitamin A deficiency and emphysema
Brassica vegetables
kill colon cancer cells
Mammography Is Dangerous Besides Ineffective, Warns Samuel S Epstein, M.D.
Meat is no treat:
Why Your Doctors Do You Like They Do

The Fallacy Of Vaccination1

Fallacy 2

Vaccines had nothing to do with the decline in death rates
Vaccination Graphs
Pulse Testing For Allergies

What Really Causes
What Really Causes Schizophrenia pdf
DNA and cancer
Cancer: the good, the bad and the ugly
Vaccines: New plague for a new era

Dental Amalgam

Powerlines Cell Phones and Wifi

There is a very simple CURE for cancer1