Letter to Olallie

July 10, 1998

Dear Olallie,

Thank you for your response to my letter in the Online Birth Center News. I will respond to your concerns one at a time. You wrote:

I just read the bit by the gentleman who wrote about breast cancer. It stirred such powerful feelings for me, as my partner is currently undergoing treatment for breast cancer that has metasticized into her bone marrow. As I write this, she is in the hospital, receiving blood for her severe anemia, recovering from high dose chemotherapy. She will undergo a bone marrow transplant in an effort to give her enough chemo to save her life.

As a midwife for 15 years, who uses almost all natural remedies in my practice, I tried all the remedies mentioned in the article. We did IV vitamin C, Essiac tea, macrobiotic diet, plus numerous other therapies that we found both here and in Europe. Well, today she has little chance of recovery since the cancer has spread. There are truly dark moments as I wonder if all the time we took exploring and using alternative treatments will turn out to be the thing that kills her.

I am deeply sorry about the spread of cancer through your partner’s body. I can assure you, however, that, according to documented scientific research, conventional cancer treatments have less chance of promoting remission than do alternative therapies.

Below I outline several alternative cancer therapies and their track records as compared with chemotherapy and radiation.

Let’s start with Dr. William Donald Kelley. His alternative treatments for various kinds of cancer, including the deadly pancreatic cancer, have achieved amazing results.

John Robbins writes in Reclaiming Our Health (1996): "Nicholas J. Gonzalez, M.D., met Kelley in 1981, 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 . . ." (p. 251).

"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.

Robbins continues:

"Kelley’s success rate for those pancreatic cancer patients was 100 percent. Conventional medicine’s success rate for this disease, remember, is zero.

"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."

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."

And as for mammograms, her cancer was not found by her MD by exam, it was only discovered by mammogram. I would not advise ANYONE to go without!

Mammograms produce ionizing radiation. There is substantial evidence that ionizing radiation (X-rays, etc.) is a prime factor in various kinds of cancer. Take Leukemia.

Robbins writes: "In the 1970s, Dr. Irwin Bross, director of biostatistics at Roswell Park Memorial Institute in Buffalo, New York, led an important project studying the alarming increase in rates of leukemia. The Tri-State Leukemia Survey, as it was called, used the tumor registries in New York, Maryland, and Minnesota to follow 16 million people" (p. 232).

Dr. Bross looked at many factors, including "family background, cause of death for parents and grandparents, the person's own health history, complete occupational history, residential history, whether they'd been exposed to farm animals, etc. . . . After four years of work, [Dr. Bross concluded that] the main cause of the rising rates of leukemia was medical radiation in the form of diagnostic medical X-rays" (Robbins, p. 233).

Dr. Bross published his results in the American Journal of Public Health. Immediately, the National Cancer Institute cut off his funding.

Let's look at breast cancer.

In 1996, John William Gofman, M.D. (professor emeritus of Molecular and Cell Biology at University of California, Berkeley, and codiscoverer of protactinium-232, uranium-232, protactinium-233, and uranium-233) published a book entitled Preventing Breast Cancer.

Here is the conclusion of his research: "Our estimate is that about three-quarters of the current annual incidence of breast cancer in the United States is being caused by earlier ionizing radiation [X-rays, etc.], primarily from medical sources."

Robbins: "John Gofman does not underestimate the role in cancer causation played by pesticides, hormone pills, fatty diets, and other environmental stressors. [Gofman] states: ‘There is no inherent conflict or competition between carcinogens,’ because they multiply each other’s carcinogenic effects" (p. 234).

Dr. Gofman writes: "It is factually wrong . . . to claim that no harm has ever been proven from very low-dose radiation. On the contrary. Existing human evidence shows cancer-induction by radiation at and near the lowest possible dose and dose-rate with respect to cell-nuclei. By any reasonable standard of scientific proof, such evidence demonstrates that there is no safe dose or dose-rate below which dangers disappear. No threshold-dose. Serious, lethal effects from minimal radiation doses are not "hypothetical," "just theoretical," or "imaginary." They are real.

Dr. Gofman continues: "On the factual basis for rejecting the claim that no harm has yet been proven from low-dose radiation: Assertions in this communication are supported in detail, and with very specific sourcing, in Gofman 1990 [chapters 18 - 21, 32, 33]. . . . We have found no refutation of our proof. On the contrary, our method is extensively confirmed in the 1993 report of the United Nations (UNSCEAR 1993, esp. pp. 627-636, p. 681, p. 696 Table 17)" [see www.ratical.com/radiation].

Most of the civilized world believes in the myth that ionizing radiation in the form of diagnostic medical X-rays (mammograms, etc.) are part of a sane regimen of cancer prevention. There is no evidence to support this view. Nor is there any evidence that natural (dietary, vitamin, herbal, lifestyle) remedies for cancer are unscientific or "dangerous." Scientific studies consistently show that so-called alternative remedies for cancer have much higher cure rates than traditional treatments.

How did all this come to be? How did radiation come to be an accepted tool in cancer diagnosis? The answer may astound you.

John Robbins writes: "[In 1913] Memorial Sloan-Kettering . . . accepted tremendous donations from an immensely wealthy businessman named James Douglas. But, according to Memorial Sloan-Kettering’s former official historian, Bob Considine, "Douglas’s enormous gifts came with strings attached" [emphasis mine]. Douglas owned vast numbers of radium mines, and stood to profit enormously if the medical use of radiation caught on. He insisted, as a basic condition of his contributions, that the center routinely use radiation in all of its cancer treatments" (p. 231).

Even a midwife uses Pitocin when she needs to.

Pitocin (i.e., synthetic oxytocin, a labor stimulant) has come to be regarded as "necessary" because our culture encourages unhealthy birth practices, any one of which can cause the cascade effect, whereby one medical intervention creates the need for another. A healthy mother birthing at home with a trained midwife does not need a labor stimulant.

Let's take this serious disease [cancer] seriously.

To take this disease seriously, we must realize that cancer is a cultural disease. It does not arise naturally. It is not found in traditional (so-called "primitive") cultures. Civilization causes cancer. Our bodies do not need help from the tools of civilization. Our bodies need respite from these tools. We need respite from many different aspects of civilization, including high-stress environments (traffic-jammed "free"ways, office cubicles lit by fluorescent lights, densely packed housing), toxic air and water, and indigestible food. We need to listen to our bodies. When we begin to listen to our bodies, to take our bodies seriously, we will see the epidemic of cancer disappear.

There is a place for everything, even the naturopaths out here in Seattle agree that chemo is necessary.

I would like the names and e-mail addresses of the naturopaths who believe that chemotherapy is "necessary."

Best wishes to you and your friend.

In health,

Jock Doubleday

Director

Natural Woman, Natural Man, Inc.

http://www.SpontaneousCreation.org

director@spontaneouscreation.org