Info on Chemotherapy Safety

What The Cancer Industry Does Not Want You To Know About Chemotherapy and Radiation

chemotherapy

30th October 2013

By Dave Mihalovic

Guest Writer for Wake Up World

They tell us chemotherapy saves lives, boosts long-term survival rates and does not damage healthy cells. All these statements by the cancer industry are false. Poison kills indiscriminately — always has and always will. While damaging healthy cells, chemotherapy also triggers them to secrete a protein that sustains tumour growth and resistance to further treatment. That’s right…chemotherapy will actually boost cancer growth and cancer treatment is the leading cause of secondary cancers.

Vaccines, pharmaceuticals, diagnostics and therapies, dentistry, psychiatry and practically all medical research is an industry and driver of corporate profits. The cancer industry is particularly ironic because the products that cause many cancers are made by divisions of the same multi-national corporations whose subsidiaries make the scanners and equipment that is used to diagnose cancers, the drugs used in chemotherapy and those given to prevent the cancer returning.

In what reality do we live in when cut, poison and burn are the only ways acceptable to treat cancer?

The cancer industry destroys or marginalizes safe and effective cures while promoting their patented, expensive, and toxic remedies that do more harm than good.

No chemotherapy drug has ever actually cured or resolved the underlying causes of cancer. Even what mainstream medicine considers “successful” chemotherapy treatments are only managing symptoms, usually at the cost of interfering with other precious physiological functions in patients that will cause side effects down the road. There is no such thing as a drug without a side effect.

Chemotherapy and Radiation May Kill Cancer, But They Also Kill You

Chemotherapy has a number of post-treatment adverse effects. Most chemotherapeutic agents do enter the brain and they can directly and indirectly produce a number of acute and delayed changes to the central nervous system. These effects can last for years, then dissipate, or, when they occur in young children, can ripple into adulthood.

The long-term survival rates of chemotherapy patients are grossly exaggerated because most of these patients end up dying of diseases unrelated to the original cancer itself, but instead related to the treatment.

Chemotherapy drugs (especially alkylating agents) are known to cause other cancers including leukemia many of these drugs fall into this class. Alkylating agents directly damage DNA of all cells. These agents are not phase-specific; in other words, they work in all phases of the cell cycle. Because these drugs damage DNA, they can cause long-term damage to the bone marrow and consequently affect long-term immunity. With these drugs, the risk for a second cancer develops slowly over time but their diagnosis is inevitable. Studies have shown that the risk begins to rise about two years after treatment, is highest about five to 10 years after treatment. It’s the reason most chemotherapy patients die 10-15 years after treatment.

Radiation therapy can also increase the risk of developing cancer in most people. The types of cancers linked to radiation therapy are vast, but primarily consist of leukemia and sarcomas. These cases typically develop a few years after radiation exposure with the peak of risk being about five to nine years after exposure. Again, most patients that pursue radiation therapy develop secondary cancers related to treatment and not as a consequence of the original cancer. Radiation-induced cancers have exploded in the past two decades ever since radiation has proliferated as a treatment, usually secondary to chemotherapy.

Some other cancer risks are tied to radiation therapy, as well. Solid tumors can develop at or near the site of the radiation exposure even 10 or more years after the radiation therapy. These risks seem to be greatest in certain areas of the body, such as the breast and the thyroid. In some of these cases, your age at the time of radiation treatment plays a role. For example, younger breast cancer patients are more likely to develop a second cancer from radiation therapy than older breast cancer patients.

Doctors Speak Out About The Cancer Industry

Dr. Robert Atkins, MD, of Atkins Diet fame once announced there are several cures for cancer, but there’s no money in them. They’re natural, effective, and inexpensive, no expensive drugs are involved but they require quite a lot of self-discipline from patients. It costs millions to fund research and clinical trials needed to produce a new cancer drug that can be patented and sold. Often these drugs create more illness. It has been said that the key to success in the health business is to pull off the trick of making people patients for life. Consider how many people who registered a couple of abnormal blood pressure readings have been kept on medication until the medication killed them, when a quick fix course of drugs supported by major changes of diet and lifestyle would have returned their physical condition to an unmedicated healthy state.

According to Dr. John Diamond, M.D., “A study of over 10,000 patients shows clearly that chemo’s supposedly strong track record with Hodgkin’s disease (lymphoma) is actually a lie. Patients who underwent chemo were 14 times more likely to develop leukemia and 6 times more likely to develop cancers of the bones, joints, and soft tissues than those patients who did not undergo chemotherapy.”

Dr. Glenn Warner, who died in 2000, was one of the most highly qualified cancer specialists in the United States. He used alternative treatments on his cancer patients with great success. On the treatment of cancer in this country he said: “We have a multi-billion dollar industry that is killing people, right and left, just for financial gain. Their idea of research is to see whether two doses of this poison is better than three doses of that poison.”

Dr. Alan C. Nixon, past president of the American Chemical Society writes, “As a chemist trained to interpret data, it is incomprehensible to me that physicians can ignore the clear evidence that chemotherapy does much, much more harm than good.” And according to Dr. Charles Mathe, French cancer specialist, “…if I contracted cancer, I would never go to a standard cancer treatment centre. Only cancer victims who live far from such centres have a chance.”

Dr. Allen Levin stated: “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.” In his book, The Topic of Cancer: When the Killing Has to Stop, Dick Richards cites a number of autopsy studies which have shown that cancer patients actually died from conventional treatments before the tumor had a chance to kill them.

How Chemotherapy Actually Boosts Cancer Growth

Researchers tested the effects of a type of chemotherapy on tissue collected from men with prostate cancer, and found “evidence of DNA damage” in healthy cells after treatment, the scientists wrote in Nature Medicine.

Chemotherapy works by inhibiting reproduction of fast-dividing cells such as those found in tumours.

The scientists found that healthy cells damaged by chemotherapy secreted more of a protein called WNT16B which boosts cancer cell survival.

“The increase in WNT16B was completely unexpected,” study co-author Peter Nelson of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle told AFP.

The protein was taken up by tumour cells neighbouring the damaged cells.

“WNT16B, when secreted, would interact with nearby tumour cells and cause them to grow, invade, and importantly, resist subsequent therapy,” said Nelson.

In cancer treatment, tumours often respond well initially, followed by rapid regrowth and then resistance to further chemotherapy.

Rates of tumour cell reproduction have been shown to accelerate between treatments.

“Our results indicate that damage responses in benign cells… may directly contribute to enhanced tumour growth kinetics,” wrote the team.

The researchers said they confirmed their findings with breast and ovarian cancer tumours.

Patients with incurable cancers are promised much greater access to the latest drugs which could offer them extra months or years of life, however many doctors have been urged to be more cautious in offering cancer treatment to terminally-ill patients as chemotherapy can often do more harm than good, advice supported by Nelson’s study.

90% of Patients Who Receive Chemotherapy Suffer Fatal Effects

The National Confidential Enquiry into Patient Outcome and Death (NCEPOD) found that more than four in ten patients who received chemotherapy towards the end of life suffered potentially fatal effects from the drugs, and treatment was “inappropriate” in nearly a fifth of cases.

Globally, almost 90% of patients who are administered chemotherapy die within 15 years of treatment either from secondary cancers, or a compromised immunity as a direct consequence of the treatment. Chemotherapy and radiation combined are the leading cause of secondary cancer worldwide.

There has been a 68% increase in the use of chemotherapy drugs since 2003 and despite the massive increase in the incidence of cancer since then; the risk factors (according to the cancer industry) for primary and secondary cancers are still related to tobacco, alcohol, occupational exposures and genetic determinants. Cancer treatment or diagnostics is never mentioned as a cause of any primary or secondary cancers.

Cancer is a leading cause of disease worldwide and if recent trends in major cancers are seen globally in the future, the burden of cancer will increase to 22 million new cases each year by 2030. This represents an increase of 75% compared with 2008.

More than half of all cancer patients suffer significant treatment-related toxicity. Treatment can also result in life-threatening infections or patients may simply die of their cancer.

When asked about how to improve a patient’s response and outcome, Nelson replied “alternatively, it may be possible to use smaller, less toxic doses of therapy.”

But small doses of poison are still poison.

The bottom line is that chemotherapy destroys virtually all cells and systems before getting to the actual cancer. This means your central nervous system, organ systems and your immune system (to name just a few) are all compromised even years after the treatment has subsided. Forget about cancer killing you because chemotherapy will do a much better job in the long term.

Chemotherapy causes healthy brain cells to die off long after treatment has ended and may be one of the underlying biological causes of the cognitive side effects — or “chemo brain” — that many cancer patients experience.

Conventional cancer treatment is a massive and expensive fraud–a non-treatment that sickens and kills more people than it ever “cures.” It can never cure anything because it poisons the body which only causes more disease in the future.

The question [of whether or not chemotherapy really extends life, ed.] can probably no longer be answered. In clinical studies the manufacturers always compare their new drugs with older cellular poisons. There are no control groups that are given no treatment at all.

In order to be allowed onto the market, it suffices to achieve a “statistically significant” advantage in one small group of hand- picked test subjects vs. those treated with some already approved cellular poison.

from:    http://wakeup-world.com/2013/10/30/what-the-cancer-industry-does-not-want-you-to-know-about-chemotherapy-and-radiation/

Mobile Phones and Tumors—You Decide

Biggest Ever Study Shows No Link Between Mobile Phone Use and Tumors

ScienceDaily (Oct. 20, 2011) — There is no link between long-term use of mobile phones and tumours of the brain or central nervous system, finds new research published online in the British Medical Journal  

In what is described as the largest study on the subject to date, Danish researchers found no evidence that the risk of brain tumours was raised among 358,403 mobile phone subscribers over an 18-year period.

The number of people using mobile phones is constantly rising with more than five billion subscriptions worldwide in 2010. This has led to concerns about potential adverse health effects, particularly tumours of the central nervous system.

Previous studies on a possible link between phone use and tumours have been inconclusive particularly on long-term use of mobile phones. Some of this earlier work took the form of case control studies involving small numbers of long-term users and were shown to be prone to error and bias. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) recently classified radio frequency electromagnetic fields, as emitted by mobile phones, as possibly carcinogenic to humans.

The only cohort study investigating mobile phone use and cancer to date is a Danish nationwide study comparing cancer risk of all 420,095 Danish mobile phone subscribers from 1982 until 1995, with the corresponding risk in the rest of the adult population with follow-up to 1996 and then 2002. This study found no evidence of any increased risk of brain or nervous system tumours or any cancer among mobile phone subscribers.

So researchers, led by the Institute of Cancer Epidemiology in Copenhagen, continued this study up to 2007.

They studied data on the whole Danish population aged 30 and over and born in Denmark after 1925, subdivided into subscribers and non-subscribers of mobile phones before 1995. Information was gathered from the Danish phone network operators and from the Danish Cancer Register.

Overall, 10,729 central nervous system tumours occurred in the study period 1990-2007.

When the figures were restricted to people with the longest mobile phone use — 13 years or more — cancer rates were almost the same in both long-term users and non-subscribers of mobile phones.

The researchers say they observed no overall increased risk for tumours of the central nervous system or for all cancers combined in mobile phone users.

They conclude: “The extended follow-up allowed us to investigate effects in people who had used mobile phones for 10 years or more, and this long-term use was not associated with higher risks of cancer.

“However, as a small to moderate increase in risk for subgroups of heavy users or after even longer induction periods than 10-15 years cannot be ruled out, further studies with large study populations, where the potential for misclassification of exposure and selection bias is minimised, are warranted.”

to read more, go to:    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111020191848.htm

Marijiuana as Cancer Treatment

Marijuana As A Treatment For Cancer

Wed Oct 05 2011 09:59

Michigan: Medical Marijuana as a Treatment for Cancer

September 30th, 2011 – FERNDALE — When his cancer came back for a fifth time, Michael McShane was desperate for treatment outside of traditional medicine.

The last time squamous cell carcinoma left lumpy tumors around his mouth, doctors cut it away and reconstructed his bottom lip by turning out a portion of its inner layer.

“You can only do most facial tricks once,” McShane, 51, said. “I needed another option.”

As a qualifying medical marijuana patient, he tried “Simpson oil” derived from cannabis plants by a Canadian named Rick Simpson. McShane bought some from an Oak Park dispensary that has since closed and puts a few drops every day on his face. Over the course of about 10 weeks, the tumors faded and then seemed to disappear.

His dermatologist, Ali Moiin, M.D., has said McShane isn’t cured but his cancer cells have decreased by about 60 percent.

“You still have some residual ones, but the size has definitely decreased,” Dr. Moiin told a WWJ reporter in late August, adding he thinks the results merit further scientific study.

Moiin didn’t return phone calls for an interview for this story. He isn’t the doctor who signed the physician certification form for McShane, who has another qualifying medical problem.

In all, since the Michigan Medical Marijuana Program started in April 2009, 2,215 of the state’s licensed physicians have certified that a patient suffers from one of the debilitating conditions identified in the act, and that the patient may find therapeutic and palliative relief from the medical use of marijuana. A total of 105,458 patient registry cards have been issued in that time period.

An estimated 55 doctors signed 70 percent of the certification forms, according to one review; most of the others aren’t talking about it publicly.

“I imagine it is a fairly sensitive issue because it is politically charged,” said Colin Ford, director of state and federal government relations for the Michigan State Medical Society.

Physicians are cautious because patient privacy is important, he said.

A forbidden cure?

Privacy isn’t as important to McShane as sharing what he considers his latest triumph over cancer without surgery, radiation, chemotherapy, reconstructive surgery and their side effects.

“The marijuana oil replaced all that and reduced the cancer to almost nothing,” he said. “My forehead and mouth were in bad shape in the spring. All of a sudden one morning it was there — a callous-like growth the size of a half dollar on my forehead. Skin cancer is my regular nemesis.”

McShane is one of a growing number of people extolling the healing properties of Simpson oil for everything from cancer, AIDS, Crohn’s disease, osteoporosis, arthritis, and diabetes to psoriasis, hemorrhoids and warts. They call it a “forbidden cure,” saying the oil that can be used topically or ingested isn’t given enough credit because it would cut into medical and pharmaceutical profits.

“I’ve struggled with cancer for over 20 years and probably have spent over $1 million on conventional treatment,” McShane said, adding he was insured until his payments increased to $1,400 a month.

“I can’t believe what just wiping Simpson oil on my skin did for me. I spent a couple hundred dollars versus $100,000.”

Qualifying conditions

McShane is one of 3,119 patients certified in the state through Aug. 31 for using medical marijuana to treat cancer and its side effects.

to read more, go to:   http://beforeitsnews.com/story/1189/471/Marijuana_As_A_Treatment_For_Cancer.html

 

 

And from Dr. Andrew Weil’s Website:http://www.drweil.com/drw/u/QAA400761/Marijuana-for-Cancer.html

Q
Marijuana for Cancer?
I know that medical marijuana can help relieve nausea and vomiting due to chemotherapy, but recently, I’ve heard about the use of marijuana to actually treat cancer. Is this true?

A
Answer (Published 7/23/2010)
You’re quite right: exciting new research suggests that the cannabinoids found in marijuana may have a primary role in cancer treatment and prevention. A number of studies have shown that these compounds can inhibit tumor growth in laboratory animal models. In part, this is achieved by inhibiting angiogenesis, the formation of new blood vessels that tumors need in order to grow. What’s more, cannabinoids seem to kill tumor cells without affecting surrounding normal cells. If these findings hold true as research progresses, cannabinoids would demonstrate a huge advantage over conventional chemotherapy agents, which too often destroy normal cells as well as cancer cells.