Adding its voice, the prestigious British medical journal The Lancet, decrying the failure of conventional therapy to stop the rise in breast cancer deaths, noted the discrepancy between public perception and reality. "If one were to believe all the media hype, the triumphalism of the [medical] profession in published research, and the almost weekly miracle breakthroughs trumpeted by the cancer charities, one might be surprised that women are dying at all from this cancer" it observed. Noting that conventional therapies -- chemotherapy, radiation and surgery -- had been pushed to their limits with dismal results, the editorial called on researchers to "challenge dogma and redirect research efforts along more fruitful lines."
John Cairns, professor of microbiology at Harvard University, published a devastating 1985 critique in Scientific American. "Aside from certain rare cancers, it is not possible to detect any sudden changes in the death rates for any of the major cancers that could be credited to chemotherapy. Whether any of the common cancers can be cured by chemotherapy has yet to be established."
In fact, chemotherapy is curative in very few cancers -- testicular, hodgkins, choriocarcinoma, childhood leukemia. In most common solid tumors -- lung, colon, breast, etc. -- chemotherapy is NOT curative.
In an article entitled "Chemotherapy: Snake-Oil Remedy?" that appeared in the Los Angeles Times of 1/9/87, Dr. Martin F. Shapiro explained that while "some oncologists inform their patients of the lack of evidence that treatments work...others may well be misled by scientific papers that express unwarranted optimism about chemotherapy. Still others respond to an economic incentive. Physicians can earn much more money running active chemotherapy practices than they can providing solace and relief.. to dying patients and their families."
Dr. Shapiro is hardly alone. Alan C. Nixon, PhD, Past President of the American Chemical Society wrote that "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."
In 1986, McGill Cancer Center scientists sent a questionnaire to 118 doctors who treated non-small-cell lung cancer. More than 3/4 of them recruited patients and carried out trials of toxic drugs for lung cancer. They were asked to imagine that they themselves had cancer, and were asked which of six current trials they themselves would choose. 64 of the 79 respondents would not consent to be in a trial containing cisplatin, a common chemotherapy drug. Fifty eight found all the trials unacceptable. Their reason? The ineffectiveness of chemotherapy and its unacceptable degree of toxicity.
Famed German biostatistician Ulrich Abel PhD also found in a similar 1989 study that "the personal views of many oncologists seem to be in striking contrast to communications intended for the public."
In 1990, $3.53 billion was spent on chemotherapy. By 1994 that figure had more than doubled to $7.51 billion. This relentless increase in chemo use was accompanied by a relentless increase in cancer deaths.
Why the growth in chemotherapy in the face of such failure? A look at
the financial interrelationships between a large cancer center such as
Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center and the companies that make billions
selling chemo drugs is revealing. James Robinson III, Chairman of the MSKCC
Board of Overseers and Managers, is a director of Bristol-Myers Squibb,
the world's largest producer of chemotherapy drugs. Richard Gelb, Vice-Chairman
of the MSKCC board is Bristol-Myers Chairman of the Board. Richard Furlaud,
another MSKCC board member, recently retired as Bristol Myers' president.
Paul Marks MD, MSKCC's President and CEO, is a director of Pfizer. http://www.cancermed.com/chemo.htm
[7] "We know from modern
science that what works for some, does not work for others. The FDA
process for patient
access to unapproved treatments is a good example of the nature of
the federal government to micromanage the lives of
individual Americans, often unnecessarily." Government Reform and Oversight
Committee February 12, 1998 Chairman Dan Burton (R-IN) http://www.snowcrest.net/reddingmed/Medicine/hearings/fda298/2_12db.htm
Back
to Main page.
[8] "Forty-two percent
of American consumers use some form of alternative medicine.
A wide range of treatments are being used by millions of American consumers
but will not be researched or certified in an official manner. Most of
these products are not patentable in the U.S. because they are made from
essential nutrients and other natural substances. Sadly, none of
these products are compatible with the current FDA approval process because
the system is only designed to give approval to pharmaceuticals. Natural
medicinal products should be offered a separate approval track similar
to the one used in Germany, where manufacturers submit their product for
approval and undergo a different set of scientific reviews for safety and
efficacy. " Government Reform and Oversight Committee February 12, 1998
Representative Peter DeFazio (D-Oregon) http://www.snowcrest.net/reddingmed/Medicine/hearings/fda298/2_12pd.htm
[9] This
internal NCI memo
- signed by current FDA acting commissioner Michael Friedman MD - states
that in his opinion the responses of Dr.Burzynski's brain tumor patients
to treatment with antineoplastons are "real."
Raid: Bursynski
Research Clinic - Jul. 7, 1985
Address: 1200 Richmond Ave. #260 Houston, TX 77082
Phone - (713) 597-0111 - Dean Mouscher
Reason: Interstate shipping of antineoplastins (cancer therapy) NCI,
Aetna insurance and others pressured
FDA into raiding The Bursynski clinic.
Outcome: FDA seized 200,000 medical and research documents forcing
Burzynski to pay to make copies. No
charges were filed.
The FDA's Holy War Against Dr. Burzynski, obviously a man of compassion
and concern: Dr.Whitaker
asks "What has happened to our civilization?" http://www.tldp.com/issue/155/maxwell.htm
10] New Natural Products and Plant Drugs with Pharmacological, Biological
and Therapeutice Activity, pp 1-22.8. Wagner & Wolff,.
[11] Warren-Davis "The Theory and Practice of Herbalisn", lecture
given to Wrekin Trust Open Conference on Health and Healing, Loughborough
University, 15 July 1977, New Herbal Practioner, IV, no.1, 1977
pp.18-9.
[12]
Farnsworth and others, "The Current Status of the Use of Eleutherococcus
senticosus in the USA and its Potential Value in the American Health Care
System", 29 May 1980.
[13] Greed vs Health.
The Green Pharmacy by Barbara Griggs. Chapter 21, Regulars and
Rivals, pp 241-253
[14] Syphilis Greed vs Health
The Green Pharmacy by Barbara Griggs. Chapter 22, Magic Bullets,
pp255-267
[15] Heat treatments
Dennie, A History of Syphilis, pp.113-8.
[16] Adverse reactions:
Dubos, "On the Present Limitations of Drug Research", in Talalay (ed.),
Drugs in Our Society, p.41.
[17] Public statement of 17 drug scientists after Meeting
on the Rational Regulations of the Delopement of New Medicines, European
Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, II, 233, (1977), cited Laurene and
Black, The Medicine you Take, pp136-7.
[18] Fletcher Hyde, "Therapeutic Use of Herbal Remedies" A lecture
delivered at a symposium on herbal remedies in Europe, arranged by the
Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain at the new School of Pharmacy,
Gradfor University, 22 May 1974. Printed in New Herbal Practioner,
I, 1974, p.19
