Letter to a Friend

Diagnosed with Hodgkin's Lymphoma

May 6, 2002

Dear Cheryl,

I'm not surprised you have cancer. Are you? Your diet for several decades was a tumor's dream.

Are these friends who are praying for you also bringing you gifts of cakes and sweets containing refined sugar that will continue to suppress your immune system? Are they bringing you gift packs of diet cola, which contains carcinogenic caramel coloring? Are they bringing you processed meats that contain carcinogenic nitrates? Do they think that chemo is going to cure your cancer? Have they done the research?

Is the hospital feeding you Jell-O, the gelatin of which is made by boiling cow's or pigs' skin, tendons, ligaments, and bones? Are nurses feeding you reconstituted nonorganic eggs laden with antibiotics, pesticides, and herbicides? Are they feeding you reconstituted nonorganic orange juice created using government-approved tap water full of carcinogenic substances such as chlorine and fluoride, not to mention pesticides and herbicides?

People call cancer "a mystery of nature." They fear it because it "comes out of nowhere," and "there's nothing you can do." Well, cancer doesn't come out of nowhere. Cancer has many possible causes, both lifestyle and environmental. Sometimes causes combine to increase risk, though one cause alone can create cancer.

Culture, not nature, gives people cancer. Culture says it's okay to strip natural foods of their nutrients, then preserve them in artificial chemicals and call the result "food." Culture says it's okay to vaccinate children from birth with vaccines containing preservatives such as Beta-propiolactone and formaldehyde, both EDF-recognized carcinogens. Culture says it's okay to deny babies breastmilk and feed them formula, which contains carcinogenic pasteurized cow's milk. Culture says it's okay to ignore scientific studies and eat things because they taste good and take doctors' advice because they're "experts."

Medical doctors are not experts. They are indoctrinated in the cult of medical school. They know nothing about nutrition, they know nothing about health. They are front men for the pharmaceutical companies. They prescribe drugs to suppress, not cure, sickness.

Western medicine does not concern itself with diet for one simple reason: foods cannot be patented. (Unfortunately, genetic engineering is changing this.) Drugs, on the other hand, are patentable and a medical staple. In the modern-day hospital, the philosophies "technology first" and "money above all" intertwine like the twin snakes of the caduceus.

Oncologists are technicians without a cause. 75% of oncologists will not allow their own family members to undergo conventional cancer treatment, because they see that such treatment has little effect on cancer. Most patients treated by conventional methods (the ones you are using now) die.

Many alternative cancer treatments with high success rates -- proven successes -- are outlawed in the U.S. (at the request of guess who? -- the AMA, the American Cancer Society, the National Cancer Institute). Some, such as intravenous vitamin C and the herbal formula Essiac, are still legal.

Cancer cures are known and documented. If you want to live, call or email me or check out my web site. Many cancer patients don't want to live. They're tired of life, or living is too much trouble. If you want to die, continue on your present course.

Cancer is curable. But before taking right action or even allowing yourself to believe this, you'll have to do something that may be impossible for you: take your faith out of the men in white coats and put it in science.

A friend who truly loves you and wishes you to live,

Jock

P.S. Below please find excepts from an article I wrote using information taken largely from John Robbins' 1996 book Reclaiming Our Health: Exploding the Medical Myth and Embracing the Source of True Healing:

1) info on one of the prime causes of cancer

2) a short history of the rise of conventional cancer "therapy," and

3) science-backed alternative cancer remedies and contact information.

* * *

Ever wonder why cancer is so prevalent in our society?

So did Dr. Irwin Bross, director of biostatistics at Roswell Park Memorial Institute in Buffalo, New York. In the 1970s, Dr. Bross headed a project that studied the alarming increase in rates of leukemia. His sample was 16 million people from New York, Maryland, and Minnesota.

After checking factors as diverse as health history, occupational history, residential history, family background, cause of death for parents and grandparents, exposure to farm animals, pet ownership, whether or not the pets had ever been sick, Dr. Bross came to the conclusion that the main cause of the rising rates of leukemia was medical radiation in the form of diagnostic medical X-rays (Leslie Freeman, ed., Nuclear Witnesses: Insiders Speak Out, New York: Norton, 1982, p. 27).

Dr. John Gofman, Professor Emeritus of Molecular and Cell Biology at the University of California at Berkeley, was wondering the same thing in the early 1990s. His research led him to write a 400-page book in which he estimates that "three-quarters of the current annual incidence of breast cancer in the United States is being caused by earlier ionizing radiation, primarily from medical sources." Astonishingly, this isn't even news. "[M]edical science," Gofman continues, "has known for 20 years that ionizing radiation is a prominent and proven cause of breast-cancer" (John Gofman, Preventing Breast Cancer, San Francisco: Committee for Nuclear Responsibility, 1995, p. 303).

Let's jump back to 1913. Memorial Sloan-Kettering, the world's largest private cancer treatment and research center, is about to commit itself to the long-term use of radiation in cancer treatment. Why?

A very wealthy businessman named James Douglas wanted to make some fairly hefty donations to cancer research. According to Bob Considine, former Memorial Sloan-Kettering official historian, however, "Douglas's gifts came with strings attached." You see, Douglas owned a large number of radium mines and stood to make an enormous profit if the medical use of radiation caught on. Douglas made it a basic condition of his contributions that radiation be used routinely in all of the center's cancer treatments (John Robbins, Reclaiming Our Health, Tiburon, CA: HJ Kramer, 1996, p. 231).

Just in case you think you have a friend to go to with this information in the National Cancer Institute or the American Cancer society, or even the AMA, you'd better think again. It was the National Cancer Institute that cut off Dr. Bross's funding when his Tri-State Leukemia Survey was published. And all three of these agencies have blacklisted all cancer treatments not in line with radiation and chemotherapy models.

What are these alternative treatments? 1) Essiac (principally burdock root, sheep sorrel, turkey rhubarb root, and slippery elm bark); 2) Hoxsey formula (herbal, similar to Essiac); 3) vitamin C (proven effective for most types of cancer by Nobel Peace Prize winner Linus Pauling); 4) Gerson diet (raw vegetarian); 5) Michio Kushi diet (macrobiotic); 6) Burzynski therapy (antineoplastons, substances that occur naturally in the human body).

These natural therapies, blacklisted by all the relevant major medical associations because of their non-patentability, have track records far superior to those of traditional therapies in every category of comparison--even price. The price tag today for standard cancer therapy is approximately $100,000.00. Essiac costs four cents a day.

Ionizing radiation is not, of course, the only determinant of cancer in our society. Other determinants include diets high in meat, eggs, dairy products, refined sugar, white flour, processed foods; chlorine (found in virtually all government-approved drinking water); pesticides; bottle-feeding; having been born to a woman who bottle-fed; supplemental estrogen; and the birth control pill. (Regarding this last, the July 30, 1992 New England Journal of Medicine found that the long-term use of oral contraceptives "appears to increase the risk of breast cancer by about 50 percent"). Radiation is unique, however, in that it is the only one of these substances that we use to diagnose and "prevent" cancer.

Let's jump ahead to May 3, 1998. A Reuters news service article proclaims: Government scientists excited about cancer drugs." Dr. Richard Klausner, director of the National Cancer Institute: "I am putting nothing on higher priority than getting [these drugs] into clinical trials. [These drugs are] the single most exciting thing on the horizon" for cancer treatment.

Dr. Judah Folkman, who discovered the drugs, has a different take: "If you have cancer and you are a mouse, we can take care of you." Although the drugs have been tested only on mice, somehow one of the drugs, Xeloda, has already won "accelerated approval" from the FDA, requiring the company to confirm the drug's benefit only after it hits the market. Reassuring, isn't it?

To find out about proven alternative, and possibly illegal, cancer therapies, call: Healing Choices (718) 636-4433, read Sheila Snow's book, The Essence of Essiac; or visit the web site of Natural Woman, Natural Man, Inc.

* * *

As to the efficacy of alternative cancer treatments, consider Dr. William Donald Kelley, whose alternative treatments for various kinds of cancer, including the deadly pancreatic cancer, have achieved stunning results.

A man named Nicholas J. Gonzalez, M.D. met Kelley in1981, and thought he had to be a charlatan. . . . Gonzalez began to research Kelley's records, thinking it would take only a few weeks to prove the man a quack. But Gonzalez ended up spending the next six years analyzing the results Kelley obtained in treating cancer patients . . . John Robbins writes in Reclaiming Our Health:

"To his amazement, he found that Kelley actually seemed to be "curing the incurable" utilizing individualized diet, intensive nutritional support, pancreatic enzymes, and detoxification. . . . 22 patients who were diagnosed by medical authorities as suffering from terminal pancreatic cancer came to see Kelley. . . . 12 of the patients never started the program, and their median survival was . . .eight weeks. Five of the patients undertook Kelley's program, but only partially followed the treatment protocol, and their median survival was eight months.

There were five other patients, however, who followed through with Kelley's complete treatment regimen. . . . [F]our of the five were still alive, at last report, more than 15 years after starting the program. And the patient who died lived for many years after treatment by Kelly. He died of Alzheimer's disease, with no sign of cancer in his body."

Kelley's success rate for pancreatic cancer patients was 100 percent. Conventional medicine's success rate for this disease is zero.

Robbins continues: "Gonzalez thoroughly studied the records of 455 Kelley patients who suffered from a variety of cancers, and found that it was not only with cancer of the pancreas that Kelley achieved spectacular successes [but with] 'a wide variety of cancers.'" . . .

"Did the American Cancer Society or the National Cancer Institute immediately follow up these encouraging findings with a major study on Kelley's work? Not exactly. They completely ignored it. You see, back in 1971 the American Cancer Society had put Kelley's therapy on its Unproven Methods list, where it has remained ever since, stigmatized and discredited.

"To this day, no American Cancer Society or National Cancer Institute representative has ever attempted an impartial evaluation of Kelley's methods and results. And to this day, the American Cancer Society warns cancer patients against involving themselves with the treatment. (251)

Another alternative cancer therapy has recently been developed by a physician named Georg Springer. He began by isolating antigens which develop on the surface of cancer cells and elicit an immune response. Springer then developed a harmless and inexpensive skin test using the body's own antigens that can detect the presence of cancer cells up to six years before they would show up on a mammogram (and without exposure to harmful X-rays), 90 percent of the time. Many more than 1,000 people have taken Springer's test, and there have been no false positives (no times that the test said cancer was present when it actually wasn't).

Mammograms, on the other hand, are notorious for high rates of false positives, leading to a tremendous amount of anxiety and unnecessary medical intervention.

A key component of Springer's program involves injections of antigens to stimulate the immune system. His goal is to fortify the body's natural abilities for self-repair, to harness the power of the immune system. His methods, like those of many other alternative practitioners, work to strengthen the immune system rather than destroy it, as chemotherapy often does.

Springer writes: "All human cells differ from their parental healthy cells in the fine architecture of their cell surfaces" ("Chicago Immunologist Uses 'T/TN Antigen' Treatment," The Cancer Chronicles, July 1994, p. 5). The body's defense system, sensing the abnormal structure of cancer cells, perceives them as foreign and seeks to eliminate them, just as it does viruses and disease-causing bacteria. Springer's antigen-based injections support the effort, enabling the body's defense system to accomplish its purpose.

Robbins writes of Springer's work: "He has most of his patients on high doses of vitamin C (4 grams daily) and vitamin E (800 units daily), plus beta carotene and a multiple vitamin. Though his treatment is not covered by most insurance companies, he is able, thanks to a small inheritance he received, to spend his personal funds to support the center. He does not turn people away who cannot afford to pay"(p. 301).

"Of course, the real question, with any method, be it conventional or unconventional, is does it work? . . . "According to the National Cancer Institute, the five-year survival rate for women with breast cancer using the conventional treatments is 41 percent for Stage III patients (large tumors with involvement of the lymph nodes), and 10 percent for Stage IV patients (distant metastases, e.g., to bone, liver, or lung). In comparison, Springer's results are nothing short of spectacular. An astounding 100 percent of the Stage III and Stage IV women in his first study group were alive after five years. Furthermore, they were not only alive, they were in most cases thriving. The vast majority of them appeared to be totally cured, with no detectable sign of cancer present in their bodies. Although the size of this study group was relatively small, subsequent results have been consistent with this sensational beginning. "With conventional treatment, only 20 percent of Stage III women and less than 5 percent of Stage IV women are alive after ten years. In Springer's group after ten years, however, 75 percent of the Stage III women were alive, and a truly phenomenal 60 percent of Stage IV women. . . . Robbins concludes: "If a woman close to me developed breast cancer, would I encourage her to seek treatment from Georg Springer, M.D.? Yes."