. The standard treatment programs for cancer are as deceptive, as the disease is itself. Being diagnosed with cancer is like a death sentence to people, which invokes feelings of fear, helplessness & suffering. Treatments, such as radiation & chemotherapy, destroy a persons health & their quality of life. Peoples lives are destroyed by cancer & families are devastated by the outcome. Private non-profits preach "help us find the cure", which seems to be a never ending "elusive" goal. We are taught to not question authority & to completely trust those in charge of our healthcare, while our loved ones die, like sheep being led to the slaughter.
"Cancer research is fundamentally flawed in its orientation."(1)"Tumor regression by itself is actually a lousy predictor for the progression of disease." The sad truth is that "regression is not likely to improve a person's chances of survival."(2) "We keep focusing on doing the same thing better rather than trying something new. It is if we are wearing blinders that let us see only one path & not the alternatives."(3)
Ralph Moss, Ph.D writes, "Let me give one example of an original idea that has been studiously ignored by the mainstream. I recently received a reprint from my colleagues Eva and Laszlo Csatary, MD, of their latest results using MTH-68. This treatment is based on the non-toxic "Newcastle Disease virus Vaccine [NDV]" and is ... beneficial ..., especially in brain cancer. The article appears in the most recent issue of the Journal of Neuro-Oncology, with co-authors from respected institutions in Germany, Hungary and California. It is not the first such article that Dr. Csatary has published. I myself co-authored a best case series with him on this topic in 1999, which appeared in a respected peer-reviewed journal. Admittedly, this is not exactly a "new" idea, simply an unrecognized one. In fact, the name of the compound, MTH-68, refers to the date of its discovery...1968, three years before the war on cancer was launched, and before many of today's cancer researchers were even born. Despite repeated articles and letters, press releases, news conferences and appeals to governmental authorities, this promising treatment has made little progress in the world of conventional medicine. The response from the American "cancer establishment" to the Csatarys' work has been a "thundering silence"."(1)
"Application of virus therapy to treat human neoplasms has over a three decade history.
Here we report on the administration of MTH-68/H to patients with glioblastoma multiforme, the most common and most aggressive neuroectodermal neoplasm with a poor prognosis, averaging six months to a year.
Four cases of advanced high-grade glioma were treated with MTH-68/H after the conventional ... therapies had failed. This treatment resulted in survival rates of 5-9 years, with each patient still living today. Against all odds, each patient resumed a lifestyle that resembles their previous daily routines and enjoys a good quality of life, Each of these patients has regularly received MTH-68/H as their sole form of onco-therapy for a number of years now without interruption."(4)
"What really matters is stopping metastases (secondary growths), which kill the great majority of cancer patients. "So you'd think that cancer researchers would have been bearing down on this insidious phenomenon for years."(2) In reality quite the opposite is true. Fortune magazine's examination of NCI grants, going back to 1972, revealed that less than 0.5 percent of study proposals focused primarily on metastases. Half of one percent! Of nearly 8,900 grant proposals awarded last year, 92 percent didn't even mention the word metastasis.
According to I.J. (Josh) Fidler of M.D. Anderson, the study of metastases is avoided by cancer researchers because it is a tough and so far unfruitful field, and not likely to yield quick and easy results. Instead, researchers focus on techniques and avenues that they know will produce measurable results in the laboratory."(1)
To find the solutions we need to look at our medical communities ability to communicate in an open minded scientific approach that is unbiased by big business & political pressures to protect the profits of these health care business. We need to expose what is behind the scenes driving the present approaches to cancer treatments & we need to see what is beyond our traditional narrow minded medical philosophy, which limits our capability to find or recognize new treatments & cures.
The pharmaceutical industry has its financial base rooted in its ability to patent a chemical that it can isolate or synthesize, so it can profit from it. There is little profit in "natural medicines", such as, diet & treatments that are inexpensive, so they show no interest.
These non-toxic cancer treatment programs in clinical trials, have had excellent results. The surprise is that they have been in place for many years & have been kept in trial status, because of pressure from the pharmaceutical industry on the FDA to keep them that way. There is only marginal profits to be made from these great programs, so they have been kept out of conventional medicine. Most of these trials are in our well known medical schools, with the experts, who train doctors, & their work is being ignored with a "Thundering Silence", from the FDA. Some good examples are at the Mayo Clinic & the University of Virginia medical school. The Mayo Clinic is using the "measles vaccine" to treat gilomas, liver cancer & ovarian cancers with very good success, which is given every weekday to babies in their vaccinations & has been in use since the 1960's, & yet it has been kept in trial status for years. The University of Virginia medical school has used the "Newcastle?s Disease Vaccine [NDV] for years, to treat brain tumors [gliomas] & skin cancer [melanoma], with great success. Why is something so harmless, as the measles vaccine, which is given to babies nationwide, being kept out of conventional medicine for treating terminally ill cancer patients & yet "chemotherapy", which can destroy a persons health, allowed in conventional treatment programs for cancer? The answer is obvious; "huge profits".
"Engineered Measles Virus Seeks Out and Destroys Liver Cancer Cells:" Scientists at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., reported that the engineered virus seeks out and destroys liver cancer cells, leaving surrounding healthy tissue in tact. In the first part of their study, the scientists studied the impact of their modified measles virus (MV-Edm) in liver cancer cell lines from human patients. Analysis of liver cancer cells removed from patients shows that these cells contain large amounts of the natural receptor for the measles virus, CD46. Overexpression of this receptor thus makes liver cancer cells ideal targets for the measles virus. The results confirmed widespread infectivity, toxicity and destruction among these cells, probably through apoptosis or programmed cell death." (5)
There are several "Alternative Cancer Treatment Programs" that have had much better recovery rates, than the conventional "Chemotherapy Programs", without the side effects. One of the best researched books on "Alterternative Cancer Treatment Programs" that I have found is "Outsmart Your Cancer" by Tanya Harter Pierce. She has a website "oursmartyourcancer.com", that is very easy to read for most people & I highly recommend it.
The issue is about the FDA protecting corporate profits, at the expense millions of peoples lives, who are dying of cancer & the horrendous side effects of their "chemo" treatments. These vaccine treatments average around $50/ treatment, compared to $15,000/treatment for "chemo". Looking at this brings us to the obvious conclusion, that this must be changed. I ask for your help in bringing about reform to help save peoples lives from the tremendous suffering that has been going on, while the answers lie right in our own medical schools & in "Alternative Cancer Treatments" that bring very little profits, other than saving peoples lives. Saving peoples lives from needless suffering is what medicine should be about!!!
Sincerely,
Benjamin V. Holston
Footnotes;
(1) Dr. Ralph Moss 4 April, 2004 "The Moss Reports"
(2) Clifton Leaf
(3) Susan Love, M.D.
(4) J Neurooncol. 2004 Mar-Apr;67(1-2):83-93. (Clinical Study, Abstract)
(5) US Pharmacist Vol. No: 28:10 Posted: 10/15/03
Web links;
http://www.isracast.com/tech_news/260106_tech.aspx
http://www.oncolyticsbiotech.com/tech.html
http://www.neotropix.com/index.htm
http://www.outsmartyourcancer.com/
http://discoverysedge.mayo.edu/measles/
http://www.mayoclinic.org/news2007-rst/3954.html
http://mayoresearch.mayo.edu/mayo/research/gene_virus_therap
http://www.mayoclinic.org/news2007-jax/4309.html